![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
johnny9fingers posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
talkpoliticsLike transparency in everything, surely?
Or maybe not. A draft of an academic paper by some clever chaps at Harvard1 questions the very fundamentals of this belief.
congressionalresearch.org/extrafiles/images/DAngelo2017EvolutionOfTransparentCorruption.pdf
For the TL:DR crowd. Please read before commenting just this once. Because IMHO there is a discussion here, and an important one. And rather than paraphrasing, because in so many respects it is difficult to better the concision of the thesis put forward here, I'm requesting a close read and a response to the arguments put forward.
Now I disagree with some points: some parts of transparency are about accountability post hoc. Also, some of these examples must legitimately fall into the whole notion of politics itself. But the point is that we have all seen these mechanisms at work, especially in the case of the NRA. So, evidently, there needs to be a demarcation over what is acceptable and what is not. (Of course those folk who are slaves to impossible ideals, impossibly rendered in non-formal language will opt for an either/or; but the rest of us who attempt to understand and judge things on a case-by-case basis and for whom ideals are strong guidelines rather than rigid belief systems, some parts will be acceptable as part of daily politics, as it is a rough game, but some are clearly over the edge.)
1James D’Angelo (with David C. King, Brent Ranalli)2 Harvard University
Aug 14, 2017
Or maybe not. A draft of an academic paper by some clever chaps at Harvard1 questions the very fundamentals of this belief.
congressionalresearch.org/extrafiles/images/DAngelo2017EvolutionOfTransparentCorruption.pdf
For the TL:DR crowd. Please read before commenting just this once. Because IMHO there is a discussion here, and an important one. And rather than paraphrasing, because in so many respects it is difficult to better the concision of the thesis put forward here, I'm requesting a close read and a response to the arguments put forward.
Now I disagree with some points: some parts of transparency are about accountability post hoc. Also, some of these examples must legitimately fall into the whole notion of politics itself. But the point is that we have all seen these mechanisms at work, especially in the case of the NRA. So, evidently, there needs to be a demarcation over what is acceptable and what is not. (Of course those folk who are slaves to impossible ideals, impossibly rendered in non-formal language will opt for an either/or; but the rest of us who attempt to understand and judge things on a case-by-case basis and for whom ideals are strong guidelines rather than rigid belief systems, some parts will be acceptable as part of daily politics, as it is a rough game, but some are clearly over the edge.)
1James D’Angelo (with David C. King, Brent Ranalli)2 Harvard University
Aug 14, 2017
(no subject)
Date: 27/8/17 15:47 (UTC)Still got to read this more thoroughly, but on the surface it seems philosophical naivety to claim single cause when corruption exists in all political conditions.
(no subject)
Date: 28/8/17 16:22 (UTC)