<i>&gt;other countries don&#x27;t trust us with their data.</i><p>To riff on this, the reason is a cultural issue regarding the <i>value of self-restraint</i>. Self-restraint is no longer valued. In fact, self-restraint is considered a critical weakness. To <i>not</i> take any action you can get away with, that advances your interests, is weak. It&#x27;s lack of value is written in stories of police brutality, it&#x27;s written in the manner in which popular elections are conducted, it&#x27;s written in the policies of our executive agencies, and it&#x27;s written in the way business is conducted. Confronted with clear evidence of wrong-doing, leaders are no longer expected to apologize and resign; we <i>expect</i> them to deny, to resist, to fight to the bitter end, no matter what. They wait out the public, they wait out the courts, and they win.<p>The question that I am having a hard time answering is simply: how did it get this way? Bush had a profound impact on this culture; there was a man who knew the anti-value of self-restraint! The anti-value of self-reflection, of taking responsibility for mistakes. Wall Street learned the anti-value of self-restraint, because they gambled, lost big, and got bailed out anyway. Police are taught the anti-value of self-restraint, because there is risk to the officer when using too little force, but virtually no risk to the officer when using too much.<p>Power delegitimizes itself when it shows a systematic lack of self-restraint.