In the epic struggle between public officials and the will of the people, officials with an authoritarian bent frequently excuse themselves by arguing that they either don't know the will of the people or the people don't know what they want. This is a canard.

The will of the people has been clearly defined in the Constitution of the United States. Moreover, one of the first principles, equality, has been repeatedly affirmed with all kinds of rules and regulations, which public officials can only ignore if they argue that they don't apply to them.

Perhaps they're just dense. So, let me give it another try by considering equality from a slightly different perspective. Rather than assuming that the opposite of equality is inequality--i.e. the negation of that positive attribute--let's posit that, in the context of agency or official behavior, the opposite of equality is to favor. And favoritism is, of course, the essence of official corruption.

There's no question that many of our elected and appointed public officials are behaving corruptly. What hasn't been entirely clear is that favoritism lies at the core and that it really makes little difference whether the favoritism extends to themselves or someone else. Nor need it involve just taking bribes; there can also be self-dealing.

Is it self-dealing when an elected official sacrifices equality on the altar of her own preference or the desire to get re-elected?