By John Q. Hosedrinker 
This episode of The David Frum Show commemorates the 80th anniversary of Victory in Europe Day, contrasting the postwar American legacy of reconciliation with Donald Trump’s recent boastful statement. A discussion with Anne Applebaum follows, focusing on the Trump presidency’s corruption and its authoritarian tendencies to undermine institutions. Finally, listener questions are addressed, covering topics such as fostering political dialogue among high schoolers, the absence of a strong worker-based movement in the US, and the risks of data suppression under the Trump administration. The episode concludes with reflections on the evolution of Frum’s conservative values within the shifting political landscape.
Read the original article here
The assertion that a particular presidency constitutes the “most corrupt in American history” is a weighty claim, demanding rigorous examination. While definitively labeling any presidency as the absolute worst is inherently subjective and reliant on the interpretation of available evidence, the sheer volume of allegations and investigations surrounding one particular administration warrants serious consideration.
The scale of alleged misconduct during this period is unprecedented in modern American politics. Numerous investigations explored potential abuses of power, including allegations of obstruction of justice, campaign finance violations, and conflicts of interest on a scale rarely witnessed before. The sheer number of individuals indicted or convicted related to this administration significantly surpasses any previous examples.
The nature of the alleged corruption is also noteworthy. It wasn’t solely about traditional political graft; the allegations involved a systematic effort to use the powers of the presidency for personal enrichment and to undermine democratic institutions. Accusations of foreign interference in elections, attempts to pressure foreign governments for personal benefit, and blatant disregard for established norms of ethical conduct add to the gravity of the situation.
Moreover, the alleged corruption wasn’t limited to a few isolated incidents. Instead, a pattern emerged, suggesting a culture of impunity within the administration itself. The frequency of controversies, combined with a constant stream of conflicting statements and denials, contributed to a climate of distrust and uncertainty. This constant stream of scandals overshadowed substantive policy debates and eroded public faith in the integrity of the government.
The legacy of this administration extends beyond the immediate consequences of its actions. The normalization of certain behaviors, the erosion of established norms, and the damage inflicted on democratic institutions will likely be felt for years to come. Many believe that the long-term effects of such widespread alleged corruption far outweigh the consequences of any other presidential administration.
The sheer number of investigations and court cases related to this presidency, many still ongoing, highlights the persistent nature of the accusations. The involvement of numerous high-ranking officials and close associates further emphasizes the systemic nature of the alleged misconduct.
Comparing this administration to others throughout American history is complex. Earlier presidencies faced accusations of corruption, but these often involved more traditional forms of political patronage and bribery. The scope and systematic nature of the allegations leveled against this specific administration, involving the alleged misuse of presidential power on an unparalleled scale for personal gain, set it apart.
However, the task of assessing its place relative to other world leaders accused of corruption poses a different challenge. Comparing the specifics of American political corruption to the often brutal and authoritarian contexts of other nations requires careful consideration. The use of power, the mechanisms of corruption, and even the definition of corruption itself vary greatly across different political systems. While the financial gains alleged might not rival some of the most egregious examples seen internationally, the sheer audacity of the alleged abuses of power in a supposedly democratic system is strikingly unique.
Ultimately, deciding whether a particular presidency is the “most corrupt” hinges on a subjective weighting of different forms and scales of alleged misconduct. It requires a consideration of the context, the long-term effects, and the potential damage to democratic norms. While assigning such a definitive title remains debatable, the weight of the evidence presented warrants a significant reevaluation of the benchmarks used for defining presidential corruption. The sheer scale and multifaceted nature of the allegations in this case, along with its potential long-term implications for democratic stability, warrant its serious and ongoing consideration.