The reaction on the left to what Rudy Giuliani said about Marie Yovanovitch being “corrupt” seems to miss an important point. Rudy, Trump and the right are redefining the term ‘corruption.’ According to standard definitions used for many years of corruption what Marie Yovanovitch did was anything but. It was anti-corruption. But Trump and company are trying to shift the definition of corruption. To provide a few examples: by the old definition corruption would be when a politician attempts to use their office strictly for personal gain. Corruption would be attempting to use one’s office to enrich oneself while in office: even if that enriching is not monetary. Using public funds assigned for other purposes to to assure reelection: corruption. Using public funds assigned by congress for other purposes to destroy a potential political rival: corruption.
The Biden kerfuffle is FRAMED as if it is the same, but it’s not. Yes, if a public servant uses their position to get their son or daughter a position they don’t qualify for, or deserve: especially with a foreign nation or corporation, that would be corruption. Unfortunately for scandal mongers the proof that Joe actually got Hunter his job is pretty much nil, unless you count his last name as all the proof one needs. If we redefine corruption as someone gaining favor because of their last name we might as well execute almost every politician, public servant, boss who elevates their sons, and some college admissions personnel. Hell, let’s go after every school that let a Trump or a Bush in. or a Kennedy, a Clinton.
I think most folks have had a supervisor who really sucks who not only ‘just happens’ to be the bosses son, but is bad for business.
Joe Biden was among many advocating to get rid of Viktor Shokin because he wouldn’t pursue corruption in Ukriane. But that doesn’t mean anything when you change the definition of “corruption.” Indeed Viktor Shokin, as painted by Trump, was great because that serves the purpose of re-purposing the term “corruption.”
Going back to the change: it’s simple. The change of the definition goes to loyalty and political correctness. If it doesn’t serve what the president wants: no matter what, that’s corruption. Obviously this definition is applied internationally too. No matter what Putin does, or the leader of North Korea or… criticism is rare, mild at best, and often delivered with a insincere smirk and a laugh. They have something Trump wants: he’s learning from the best how to be an oligarch, a dictator, rule with an iron fist. Whatever Trump wants that’s what needs to be served. That’s not corruption.
It’s no accident corruption is defined by these same leaders the same way. If an oligarch really displeases Vlad Putin they lose their property, their riches. A journalist is ‘disappeared.’ Under Kim Jong-un those who displease him lose their lives. Under the old Soviet system every time a new leader comes in those who supported others are purged: a politically convenient term for mass murder. The Jews served Hitler’s purposes just like immigrants serve Trump’s. Not just illegals: considering the demands spewed by him some born here should “go back where they came from.” And they all have their versions gulags, concentration camps, whatever they want to call them.
I’m sure the worst dictators in human history believed they were “draining the swamp.” Just like Hitler was trying to drain the swamp of “vermin” and those who weren’t obedient, like Trump is trying to drain them of “rapists” and all the other names he calls immigrants. NO; it’s not just “illegals.”
Make no mistake: Trump and the other leaders he is so reluctant to criticize view those who don’t fall in line as corrupt, groups and individuals they like to use extreme means, rhetoric and firing to “drain the swamp.” It’s what any dictator or control freak business owner would do. You know: like Donald Trump. There are a lot of advantages to enforcing this kind of goose stepping: for the leaders.
So the fact there’s no proof of corruption means nothing to people like Trump or Giuliani because they are redefining the term. This is not just some simple rephrasing of the old movie vernacular: “We don’t need no stinkin ‘proof.'” It’s changing the definition. Exposing what is normally called corruption becomes ‘corruption.’ Corruption is no longer corruption: ‘corruption’ is anything that, or anyone who, gets in the way of corruption.
It’s obvious redefining corruption in this way is devastating to freedom, to the nation and to the rule of law. One more reason impeachment is a good thing, even if McConnell rigs proceedings as I’m pretty damn sure he will. And one more reason dump Trump is a crucial cry and necessary achievement in 2020.
Of course trying to stop actual election rigging is ‘corrupt’ according to this change.
Remember; if it serves Trump and the right they no longer define that as corruption. And since we won’t WE are “corrupt” according to their usage of the word.
Inspection is a column that has been written by Ken Carman for over 40 years. Inspection is dedicated to looking at odd angles, under all the rocks, and into the unseen cracks and crevasses, that constitute the issues and philosophical constructs of our day: places few think, or even dare, to venture.
Ken Carman and Cartenual Productions
all rights reserved