How do Americans talk about corruption and why does the language they use to discuss it matter? This important work presents evidence that the prevalence of “corruption talk” in America has been increasing steadily over the past few decades, seemingly without any concurrent rise in actual acts of government corruption. The authors pull together comprehensive theoretical conceptualizations of “corruption” as a way to show that mainstream use of the word, in politics, academia, and society alike, is so imprecise that it becomes a catch-all scapegoat for nearly all things disliked about government.

The authors begin by recounting the major contemporary and historical ways we have used the word “corruption.” They note that there are two primary ways we talk about corruption—as “menders” (aiming to fix crookedness) or “purists” (seeking to purge the rot or drain the swamp). They note how Progressive Era rhetoric set the stage for contemporary corruption talk, whereby corruption became a popular thing to blame when the processes or policy outputs of government are disliked. This tendency persists into today's calls for political reform, where many proposals are rhetorically linked to rooting out corruption, when they often need not be. Many of the things we take issue with ethically, such as lobbyi