Throughout the political world, a lack of integrity is often fostered for particular party agendas and cronyism more than the actual, or even perceived, the betterment of their respective constituents. These ethical inconsistencies tend to serve companies via cronyism and coercive monopolies, fill the pockets of politicians, get politicians reelected, and help to raise more funding for the political parties. Rather than staying true to a principled ideology such as a Non-Aggression Principle, many politicians do what is seen as best for themselves and those they work closely with rather than the people the politician is meant to be “working for.”
‘Integrity’ is touted as a value everyone should have, especially a good politician if there are such. For some reason, the word ‘integrity’ has socially shifted in meaning to something more of strong moral uprightness that never sways from the subjective stance. We typically say that someone has integrity when they tell the truth about something even when it could hurt them, or when someone treats everyone with respect and dignity; there are numerous other examples, but are they correct?
The word ‘integrity’ originates from the Latin word ‘integritatem’ meaning “soundness, wholeness, completeness,” and figuratively it means “purity, correctness, and/or blamelessness.” However, there is more to the word than simply being whole, or pure, in only a circumstance or two, it suggests that the person is consistently integral. In this sense, when someone is consistent, they are said to be standing firm after taking a position, while not ceasing or bending. The word ‘integrity’ has the same core meaning as ‘integer,’ meaning “intact, whole, and/or complete,” while figuratively it means “untainted, and/or upright.” Therefore, to have integrity, one must be consistent in their actions, not compartmentalized or fractioned, while appealing to a higher, nobler, moral standard or ethic. A person with integrity acts with respect to these principles equally throughout their personal life with everyone. So, can a politician have integrity?
In short, yes, a politician can have integrity, but it is much more difficult than what the mass public would like to impart. For a politician to be integral, they must be consistent in their higher moral or ethical stance and not differentiate or sway on that standing depending on the situation. Unfortunately, many people who claim the title of being politically-minded, whether layman or politician, will vary on their so-called principled stance depending on numerous outside factors.
For example, an American politician will go to great lengths when speaking out against innocent lives being lost within the US, but when it comes to other countries they are either silent or they help to pass bills that just further the military complex. The same figurative politician may even explicitly state that they do not believe in war or the military complex, while simultaneously implicitly helping to pass bills that provide more benefits for soldiers and military personnel, which in turn incentivizes perpetual growth in the military and the supposedly disdained war hawk behavior. Even more complex, the same politician will in one manner speak against theft between citizens, yet also advocate for government laws that coerce businesses and individuals, in general, to give to others as a form of “redistribution,” making it plunder of the highest degree. In each of these, the politician is not being consistent in their self-professed ideology, thusly contradicting and fractioned, making the politician lack integrity.
Of course, the concept of ‘integrity’ applies to all people within each of our lives, not just in politics. The best way to self-assess whether you are being integral is to not only consider the consequences of your actions, but also the process in which you came to the consequence. It is also beneficial to discuss your ideologies and philosophy with others that can challenge or help to strengthen your understanding. Consider these ideas and ask yourself the following:
Am I harming or threatening to harm myself or others with my actions?
Do I appeal to a moral or ethical standard that does not infringe on the negative rights of others?
Am I consistent in how I treat people morally or ethically?
Do I act completely different around various people for them to like me, approve of me, or to not witness my alternate characteristics?
