The Mark of a Great Historian
When discussing corruption in Turkey, I've always struggled to explain--both to Turks and Americans--why it is somehow different from corruption in America. I've never attempted to persuade anyone that there's no corruption in America. That would be manifestly absurd. But it's a different kind of corruption, and its systemic effects are different.
I read Bernard Lewis's What Went Wrong some time ago, before I'd lived in Turkey. I was re-reading it this morning when I came across this sentence:
The difference between Middle Eastern and Western economic approaches can be seen even in their distinctive forms of corruption, from which neither society is exempt. In the West, one makes money in the market, and uses it to buy or influence power. In the East, one seizes power, and uses it to make money. Morally there is no difference between the two, but their impact on the economy and on the polity is very different.
Yes. Of course. I re-read that sentence about a dozen times, wondering how it had escaped me.
- Comment (15)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Aug '10
Re: The Mark of a Great Historian
Fascinating. It has the ring of truth. The difference is great, since an individual who acquires money first has - in almost every case - done so by working hard, using their brains, organizational skills, and creativity. They've proven their particular 'worth' - in the material sense only, of course. A Steve Jobs who gains political power is very likely to spot and choose others like him to mentor; which can also - theoretically - benefit society.
The Third World Way is thuggish and depends on bullying, force, and ruthlessness.
Jun '10
Re: The Mark of a Great Historian
Someday humanity will look back on republican-style government and conclude it was an interesting experiment. At which point nation-states will be ruled by a true aristocracy (Gk. aristos = best of, kratien = rule by). The new aristocracy will not be elected so much as drafted into office (I suppose with time off for good behaviour). Those who desire office will be deemed unfit to serve. The new aristocracy will be appointed based on their virtues. Somebody with a knowledge of Greek please help me out. Can we coin a neologism?
Jul '10
Re: The Mark of a Great Historian
I'm not sure Lewis is correct.
We have a system in which people who never worked a day in their lives do quite well through soft corruption. We have politicians like Dick Gephardt who somehow, on a modest salary, manage to accumulate several million-dollar homes.
Or Rahm Emmanuel, who, between government jobs, does a brief stint on the board of Fannie Mae, pockets a million bucks for nothing, and plunges back into the fray.
Or Tom Daschle, whose wife was very, very handsomely compensated as an airline lobbyist - which worked out quite nicely for the airlines in the wake of 9/11.
Congress is full of people whose husbands, wives and children enjoy lush sinecures in the lobbying community.
It's not Ferdinand Marcos or Hamid Karzai money, but it suffices.
And when they're caught, like Maxine Waters, nobody goes to prison. It's all very...genteel.
May '10
Re: The Mark of a Great Historian
Claire, tell me how Daley's mob in Chicago is meaningfully different from Rafsenjani in Iran or Ozal in Turkey, as opposed to Steve Bing, Peter Lewis, etc.?
Re: The Mark of a Great Historian
Daley's mob is the exception to the rule.
Aug '10
Re: The Mark of a Great Historian
"In the West, one makes money in the market, and uses it to buy or influence power. In the East, one seizes power, and uses it to make money. Morally there is no difference between the two..."
Actually, there is a difference (morally and in body-count). I would place it at roughly 400 years of societal development.
May '10
Re: The Mark of a Great Historian
Currently the exception is ruling us all, to no one's benefit.
I admit that I am more worried about public employee unions, which really hold the ugly whip hand in US politics these days.
Aug '10
Re: The Mark of a Great Historian
John Dillon-Allen: "In the West, one makes money in the market, and uses it to buy or influence power. In the East, one seizes power, and uses it to make money. Morally there is no difference between the two..."
Actually, there is a difference (morally and in body-count).
I've gotta agree. There's a considerable moral difference. The market is (ideally) a place of voluntary transaction, and while using money to buy power often takes unseemly turns, it's still not as morally problematic as brute force -- that is, seizing power and then using that seized power to make your pile.
A seducing cad is one thing, but a rapist is another.
Edited on Sep 7, 2010 at 1:07pmAug '10
Re: The Mark of a Great Historian
Oh, and I'd add that not all uses of money to buy power are dubious in the first place. When citizens use their money to endorse their opinions or to freely support an institution of their choosing, they are using their money to buy power of a sort. But these activities are generally on the up-and-up, and in fact vital to self-government.
__________________________________________________________
This one quibble doesn't keep Bernard Lewis from being an admirable historian, btw.
Edited on Sep 7, 2010 at 9:36amMay '10
Re: The Mark of a Great Historian
Kenneth, I think you're missing at least part of Lewis's point. He says, in essence, that in the West money purchases power. Those you listed didn't purchase their power, but other people who wanted power purchased it from them. That's where they got their money and where the moneyed got whatever influence they were able to achieve. Rotten, but that is the meaning of the word corruption.
Re: The Mark of a Great Historian
The philosopher-kings who ruled Plato's just city in speech were the only people in the city who had two jobs. We are told that the philosophers would have to be forced to rule, perhaps on penalty of death.
May '10
Re: The Mark of a Great Historian
Do you really think that? I find it hard to believe that once a people have experienced some modicum of freedom, they'd gladly go back to donating their freedom to a ruling class. I think people tend to fall asleep in protecting their freedoms, such as we've been seeing with union takeovers of businesses and over-regulation. However, at some point, those people do wake up and push back. I think that's at the core of the Tea Party movement. Folks have and are continuing to wake up.
May '10
Re: The Mark of a Great Historian
John Dillon-Allen: "In the West, one makes money in the market, and uses it to buy or influence power. In the East, one seizes power, and uses it to make money. Morally there is no difference between the two..."
Actually, there is a difference (morally and in body-count). I would place it at roughly 400 years of societal development. · Sep 7 at 9:00am
I agree, particularly with the body count statement. I grew up in a nation that was rife with corruption. The leftists, sponsored by Cuba and USSR, were trying to assume power by force from those who'd already assumed their power by force and were trying to hold on to their power by force. It was very bloody.
Edited on Sep 7, 2010 at 12:58pmJul '10
Re: The Mark of a Great Historian
Sounds quite right. Thanks
Jun '10
Re: The Mark of a Great Historian
FeliciaB
Do you really think that?
Yes, Felicia, I do. Look at the type of scoundrels who are motivated to run for office. How many do you think truly wish to serve the public? The type of person drawn to power tends to be self-serving.
As for the public, well, we got Barack Obama didn't we? How many voters did their due diligence before pulling the lever? The public bought what the ad men were selling.
I'm waiting for the day we start choosing leaders on the basis of character, but I won't hold my breath.