>

No, I’m trying to say that having their financial future relying on it makes it easy for them to rationalize away not changing their perspective and cutting themselves off from opportunities to do so. It isn’t a conscious choice though, it’s a unconscious action.
And once they’re there it’s very easy to rationalize their policy decisions, even ones they previously disagreed with, because their financial future relies on it and humans are good at rationalizing.

You just defined corruption. >

Not necessarily, I think overt corruption requires a conscious act of doing something in return for money. I don’t think these people are aware of what they’re doing, they can’t because they have to rationalize it away to keep their position. Whereas corrupt people may rationalize away why they’re corrupt (ie taking money to get my child through college), these people rationalize away the idea they are corrupt in the first place. >


overt corruption requires a conscious act of doing something in return for money
because their financial future relies on it

People rarely think they're evil. >

I agree, that’s sort of what I’m trying to say. I just think most of the “corruption” we see is the result of genuine but not so bright people put in positions of power rather than smart but corrupt people in power. >

I don't think someone needs to think what they're doing is wrong to be corrupt. Plenty of shitty, corrupt people think that corruption is a natural part of government. That doesn't make them not corrupt. >

Sure, I’m not saying these people aren’t “corrupt” I’m just trying to say that they aren’t being malicious or realize what they’re doing. >

No, you're saying that they think corruption is acceptable. They are making decisions, even those they disagree with, because 'their financial future relies on it'. They know exactly what they're doing.