Jack -- I agree with a great deal of your post. I think the measure of corruption in the late 19th century (and long into the 20th in some quarters - the Harding administration leaps to mind) that Janice was looking for was "endemic" - top to bottom and side to side, there was corruption everywhere, an accepted (if with resignation) part of the sociopolitical landscape.
It was due in part to the tremendous influx of immigrants, who were unsure of their rights and familiar with the patois of corrupt officialdom, and in part due to the lack of suitable opportunities for bright, enterprising and capable young men of the lower classes to aspire to higher status. They populated the lower rungs of the rackets, both in "official" governments and in "unofficial" governments, such as organized crime, climbing as high as they could.
But the primary source of corruption was the fact that huge amounts of capital, resources and power - the fruits of a young, rapidly expanding economy - were funneled into the hands of a very small group of extraordinarily wealthy people, who wrote their own rules by buying legislators, bureaucrats and judges at every level.
<<But I have a deep feeling that the Clinton administration wins the all time corruption prize.>> They're not even in the running with the recent past, much less the Hardings, Grants et al.
<<Also I dislike him for his phoniness>> Uh, Jack, how many sincere politicians do you know?<vbg>
Jeff |
