Um, you’re going to have a hard time claiming Obama isn’t corrupted, or that he was uncorrupt to begin with. (As you mention, such a claim is even harder for Bush.)
If the standard makes ALL leaders corrupt it doesn’t favor democratic over dictatorial ones, nor is it a very useful standard. Relative to their power, are the benefits Obama, Lee Kuan Yew or even Bush skim greater than those typical Americans seek in an antisocial manner? Even comparable?
If the standard makes ALL leaders corrupt it doesn’t favor democratic over dictatorial ones, nor is it a very useful standard.
Useful for what? I agree it’s not terribly useful for choosing whether person A or person B should hold role X, but I feel that question is a distraction- your design of role X is more important than your selection of a person to fill that role. And so the question of how someone acquired power is less interesting to me than the power that person has, and I think the link between the two is a lot weaker than people expect.
I’m presenting a dilemma. Either your standards for corruption are so high that you have to call both Yew & Obama corrupt, or your standards are loose enough that neither fits according to listed examples.
I prefer to bite the latter bullet, but if you want to bite the former, that’s your choice.
Isn’t the intelligent solution to talk about degrees of corruption and minimisisation? Measures to increase transperancy over this sort of thing are almost certainly the solution to Obama-level corruption.
No, because that’s a much more complex argument. Start with the simplest thing that could possibly work. If you don’t reach any resolution or make any progress, then one can look into more sophisticated approaches.
The reason to look at it that way is because it deals with problems of what is or isn’t “corrupt” in general- instead, levels to get rid of (assuming one is in a position to supress corruption in the first place) can be set and corruption above a maximum level dealt with.
Um, you’re going to have a hard time claiming Obama isn’t corrupted, or that he was uncorrupt to begin with. (As you mention, such a claim is even harder for Bush.)
If the standard makes ALL leaders corrupt it doesn’t favor democratic over dictatorial ones, nor is it a very useful standard. Relative to their power, are the benefits Obama, Lee Kuan Yew or even Bush skim greater than those typical Americans seek in an antisocial manner? Even comparable?
Useful for what? I agree it’s not terribly useful for choosing whether person A or person B should hold role X, but I feel that question is a distraction- your design of role X is more important than your selection of a person to fill that role. And so the question of how someone acquired power is less interesting to me than the power that person has, and I think the link between the two is a lot weaker than people expect.
I’m presenting a dilemma. Either your standards for corruption are so high that you have to call both Yew & Obama corrupt, or your standards are loose enough that neither fits according to listed examples.
I prefer to bite the latter bullet, but if you want to bite the former, that’s your choice.
Isn’t the intelligent solution to talk about degrees of corruption and minimisisation? Measures to increase transperancy over this sort of thing are almost certainly the solution to Obama-level corruption.
No, because that’s a much more complex argument. Start with the simplest thing that could possibly work. If you don’t reach any resolution or make any progress, then one can look into more sophisticated approaches.
The reason to look at it that way is because it deals with problems of what is or isn’t “corrupt” in general- instead, levels to get rid of (assuming one is in a position to supress corruption in the first place) can be set and corruption above a maximum level dealt with.