ABSTRACT
This chapter considers how to compare the role corruption plays in populist political discourse to the role it plays in the rhetoric of more conventional mainstream or “establishment” politicians. Conventional politicians tend to identify corruption as a measurable component of criminal or illegal behavior, to be identified and sanctioned through legal channels. Populist rhetoric, in contrast, tends to present corruption as a characteristic of traditional (and legal) political practices, and it is used as a means of delegitimizing the political status quo. Populist rhetoric tends to be successful in part because it more closely follows the understanding the general public has of corruption. This is one reason for the success of populist rhetoric; yet, it is also an essential dilemma for populism: it tends to identify legitimate public concerns about corruption, but because of its vague and injusticable definition, it is rarely able to ameliorate public concerns.
