Provocative article by Jonah Goldberg on NRO yesterday, arguing that the Lord Acton's maxim "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely" has been misapplied, and in fact means that "Acton believed historians should make moral judgments about the men they study".
Lord Acton may well have intended this quote to refer to historians and their biases. Goldberg, however, attempts to bolster his argument by claiming that power does not, in fact corrupt. He argues that corrupt leaders tend to be corrupt before they acquire power, so that their corruption is just more obvious when amplified by power.
But Lord Acton's maxim does not preclude corruption without power, rendering Goldberg's attack on this front moot.
Perhaps the most damning moment in Goldberg's article came, amusingly, in the first two sentences (emphasis mine):
In late August 1929, in British-run Palestine, there was an Arab riot. Mobs of Arabs stormed Jewish homes and shops. Some Arab neighbors shielded their Jewish friends, even as British police provided only lackluster protection. But most Arabs — and most of the British constables — turned a blind eye to the destruction.And later...
Each had power. Each made choices. One saw fit to murder and rape and to countenance the murder and rape of others; and one saw fit to put a stop to it. Both "used force," as we like to say today. Indeed, the British police officer had more power, in many respects, than the Arab one did. Nonetheless, the former was less corrupt than the latter.Which context makes plain should be emended to "...the former was marginally less corrupt", which is hardly a resounding conclusion to his argument.
