Think You’re Immune to

Corruption? Your Nature May

Indicate Otherwise.
The on idea that brings Abraham Lincoln and Richard Nixon on the same page:
power doesn't corrupt.

By Jamie Lim | Updated March 7, 2022, 6:56pm PST

Richard Nixon, an example of an individual with naturally unethical morals, faced his downfall as president after his
abuse of power. His role as president magnified his inherently Machiavellian nature.

“All power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely,” Lord John Dalberg-Acton
had famously stated in his 1887 letter on historical integrity. Correspondingly, countless other
philosophers throughout time have formulated similarly complex theories and maxims bolstering
this widely held belief. History itself has proved that in the eyes of many, power is viewed as a
detrimental, seductive force driving everything from societal corruption to totalitarian dictators.

As logical as it may sound, however, this well-established notion that absolute power corrupts is
far from thoroughly true; corruption is most definitely not driven by power alone. As Robert Caro,
the author of Means of Ascent, had asserted, “Power doesn’t corrupt. Power always reveals.
When someone has enough power to do what they always wanted to do, then you see what
they always wanted to do.” His simple yet relevant statement thoroughly encapsulates the fact
that power resembles a magnifier; one’s true nature amplifies and the inherent qualities of an
individual intensify. Thus, although power appears to drive corruption, it is, in reality, an
accentuator of natural tendencies that reveals one’s innate nature.

Power unchains individuals and liberates them to act as they wish. “In one experiment,
psychologists set up an annoying fan so that it would blow in people’s faces. The participants’
odds of moving it away, turning it off, or unplugging it spiked from 42 percent to 69 percent if
they had just written about a time when they had power” (Grant). Unplugging or turning off a fan
in a room, even when there is a possibility that another individual enjoys its cool air, points to
self-gratification; it is an action taken to ensure one’s personal comfort. Thus, the fact that an
individual indulged in self-indulgent behaviors after writing of a moment in which they held
power implies greatly that power unshackles humans. It frees from the restraints of conventional
beliefs and social pressures to act as one truly desires to.

When inherently selfish individuals lack power, they display benevolence. Instead, it is when
they attain power that their genuine, self-motivated decisions come further into light. “[In
Galinsky, Gruenfeld, and Magee’s experiment], psychologists assigned people a set of tasks
and let them delegate some to a colleague. People who tend to be ‘givers’ claimed the long,
boring ones for themselves and gave away the short, interesting tasks. So did more selfish
people—when they lacked power. But when they were put in a position of influence, the selfish
‘takers’ stopped being fakers. They hogged the quick, exciting work and dumped the long, dull
responsibilities on a colleague” (Grant). Galinsky, Gruenfeld, and Magee’s 2003 psychological
experiment proves that the attainment of power results in an increased risk of naturally
corrupted individuals to visibly release their naturally egotistical nature, seeing the fact that
inherently selfish individuals only showed self-indulgent tendencies when given implied power
over others.

Likewise, natural tendencies—such as testosterone levels—also play a key role in how

vigorously different individuals are affected by corruption and excess attainment of power.
“Participants with relatively low levels of testosterone for their gender simply didn’t get
corrupted. Instead they continued being the largely thoughtful and reasonable people they had
been before the exercise started. But for many of those with high levels of testosterone for their
gender, not only did power make them more narcissistic, it also made them more willing to
misuse power for selfish ends” (Stuppy). Anika Stuppy’s experiment shed light on the point that
testerone, as an inherent quality, naturally led individuals with higher levels to succumb to the
temptation of abusing power, proving the fact that those who yield to corruption already
possessed innate qualities of an immoral individual.

Richard Nixon, the first president to be impeached, already possessed an unethical nature before presidency.

Historical figures have also proved that power reveals. “I have serious doubts whether you have
the ethical qualifications to practice law,” a California judge had warned in the late 1930s,
threatening to disbar a lawyer who had adopted questionable procedures without his client’s
authorization. The lawyer’s name was none other than Richard Nixon, the thirty-seventh
American president and the first U.S. president to be impeached after his involvement in the
Watergate scandal. “Nixon admitted to taking questionable actions without his client’s authority.
Power didn’t corrupt him; he corrupted power. Being president revealed to the outside world
who he was all along” (Grant). Richard Nixon’s attainment of power proves the fact that even
historical individuals who had abused their power showed inherent signs of an amoral nature
even before they were at a position of authority, as seen in his unethical actions and immoral
nature even before presidency.

Abraham Lincoln, the sixteenth president of the United States, demonstrated that his benevolent nature magnified through his
presidency.

However, take into consideration another president—one who was born in poverty yet dutifully
completed all his farm chores, simultaneously prioritizing his education by reading in the
fireplace light with a dream to serve the future of the nation. His legacy was based on his
momentous achievements for the greater good: he ended slavery, solved political conflict and a
civil war that preserved the Union, and dedicated numerous hours to hear the concerns and
voices of plebeian citizens. His name was Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln’s entire existence disproves
the belief that power corrupts, as his role as president simply magnified his inherently
benevolent nature. He instead proved that power reveals and intensifies true tendencies.

Many may, however, argue that the Stanford Prison Experiment served as proof that ordinary
individuals with ethical tendencies, as symbolized by the students in the experiment, will abuse
and mistreat those below them when given enough power. Yet, in reality, they are overlooking a
crucial detail buried beneath the experiment’s shocking results. “The students who showed up
had been recruited to participate in a ‘study of prison life.’ When psychologists ran an
experiment to figure out what kinds of people are drawn to that kind of study, they found that
volunteers for a prison study scored about 26 percent higher on aggression and belief in social
dominance, 12 percent higher on narcissism, and 10 percent higher on authoritarianism and
Machiavellianism than people who signed up for psychological studies in general. Power didn’t
corrupt ordinary people. It corrupted people who already leaned toward corruption” (Grant).

The individuals partaking in the Stanford Prison Experiment were entirely Caucasian men with a
critical addition of high testosterone—a natural sign of increased aggression and brutality. They
were also individuals who are far from representing the entire human race; they were attracted
to prison life studies and therefore already leaned toward a Machiavellian nature. Therefore,
those in the Stanford Prison Experiment who had abused others were naturally sadistic
individuals. It was simply the acquisition of power that drove them to further magnify their innate
tendencies.
The subjects in the Stanford Prison Experiment who had abused their power were already individuals with higher
aggression, Machiavellianistic tendencies, and a heightened risk of corruption.

Power is a fundamental yet consequential—and possibly detrimental—factor in today’s society,

and its frequent collaboration with corruption has made it even more crucial, causing some to
believe it is an automatic driver of corruption. Yet, as CEO and Slack founder Stewart Butterfield
had asserted at the World Economic Forum in Davos, “Power doesn’t make you an [expletive]. It
just makes you more of who you already were.” In other words, the abuse of power is driven by
the inherent nature of the individual holding it. Indeed, the use of authority divulges innate
character: self-indulgent leaders monopolize power for their own benefits, while benevolent
leaders use their power for the benefit of others and a greater good. Power is an accentuator,
one that magnifies an individual’s natural tendencies—whether they be good or bad. Yet the
ultimate difference revolves around how one utilizes their power, and in the end, what their
nature points to.