ABSTRACT
The 1960s saw massive changes in the political, social, and cultural fabric of the nation. The post-Second World War status quo collapsed with long marginalized groups demanding their rightful place in American society. The civil rights, women’s rights, civil liberties, and reproductive rights movements presented a direct threat to dominant majorities. These groups called upon the federal government to act action to address their long-standing grievances. These groups sought a major redefinition of public integrity to include recognizing the fundamental right of individuals to live without being subject to discrimination and to be free to make lifestyle choices without governmental interference. Beginning in the 1950s and continuing through the 1970s, the U.S. Supreme Court led the way by ordering government agencies at the local, state, and federal level to stop violating the fundamental rights of residents. The Kennedy and Johnson administrations attempted to broaden the definition of public corruption by putting into place a new executive branch ethic program to deal with the financial conflicts of interest which threatened the long-term legitimacy of the administrative state. Many economic, social, and cultural conservative opposed efforts to expand the civil liberties and public ethics reforms. By the end of the 1960s, a strong backlash against social and cultural reform movements helped to ignite a new wave of political, social, and cultural polarization. Although the Watergate scandal provided progressives the opportunity to gain adoption of reform directed at new forms of public corruption, these reforms did little to slow the growing political, social, and cultural polarization in the United States. Christian, social and cultural conservatives placed a much higher priority in combating a perceived decline in the personal morality of the American public that[Cm1] so-called soft corruption public integrity issues. On the other hand, progressives fought vigorously for the expansion of lifestyle freedom as well as for new public corruption restrictions directed at the perceived threat of powerful special interests to the nation’s democratic institutions.
