"Honest graft" is a term coined by George Washington Plunkitt, a powerful political boss in New York City during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. It refers to a specific type of corruption in which public officials exploit their position for personal gain, but they argue that they are doing so in a way that benefits the public.
Plunkitt's Explanation
Plunkitt famously explained his philosophy of "honest graft" in a series of interviews with journalist William Riordan, which were later published in the book "Plunkitt of Tammany Hall." He argued that there were two types of graft:
- "Honest graft": This involved using insider knowledge and connections to get ahead in business deals, often by securing contracts for public projects. Plunkitt believed that this type of graft was justified because it benefited the community by creating jobs and improving infrastructure.
- "Dishonest graft": This involved stealing money or taking bribes, which Plunkitt considered morally wrong.
Examples of "Honest Graft"
Here are some common examples of what Plunkitt might have considered "honest graft":
- Using insider information to invest in land: A politician might use their knowledge of upcoming infrastructure projects to purchase land in areas that will be developed. They could then sell this land at a higher price once the development takes place.
- Awarding contracts to favored companies: A politician might award a contract to a company owned by a friend or supporter, even if the company isn't the lowest bidder. They might argue that this is necessary to support local businesses or to ensure the project is completed efficiently.
- Accepting gifts from constituents: A politician might accept gifts or campaign contributions from individuals or businesses who benefit from their policies. They might argue that these gifts are simply a way to show appreciation for their work.
The Ethical Debate
Plunkitt's concept of "honest graft" has been widely debated by ethicists and political scientists. Some argue that it is simply another form of corruption, while others believe that it can be justified in certain circumstances.
Arguments against "Honest Graft":
- It violates the public trust: Politicians are elected to serve the public, not to enrich themselves. Using their position for personal gain undermines public trust in government.
- It creates an unfair advantage: "Honest graft" gives politicians an unfair advantage over ordinary citizens who lack the same connections and insider knowledge.
- It can lead to abuse: Even if a politician starts with good intentions, the temptation to use their power for personal gain can be overwhelming.
Arguments in favor of "Honest Graft":
- It can be used to benefit the community: Some argue that "honest graft" can be used to fund projects that would otherwise be neglected.
- It can be a necessary tool for getting things done: In some cases, politicians may need to use their influence to overcome bureaucratic hurdles and get projects completed.
Conclusion
The concept of "honest graft" raises complex ethical questions. While Plunkitt's philosophy may seem appealing on the surface, it ultimately undermines the principles of public service and fair play.
The key takeaway is that any use of public office for personal gain, even if it is justified as "honest," is ultimately a form of corruption. It is essential for politicians to operate with transparency and accountability, ensuring that their actions always serve the best interests of the public.
