INTEGRITY: n. adherence to a code of values: INCORRUPTABILITY

Integrity is an important word in the English language.

It defines a crucial aspect of human performance which forms part of the foundation of the ability of a person to deal with a fellow human, or of nations to deal with other nations.

It is a characteristic which makes possible the ongoing relationships necessary to a stable society.

Without it — or at least some degree of it — the interactions which take place every day in every society and for innumerable reasons would not be possible.

Treaties between nations rely on the integrity of the opposing parties to quietly and consistently observe the provisions of such treaties.

When those provisions are abrogated by either party, the results can prove disastrous and have often resulted in outright war.

This was true most despicably when Germany violated its non-aggression pact with Russia at the beginning of World War II and launched a surprise attack into that country on June 22, 1941.

Stalin had been warned by Great Britain and the United States that the invasion was imminent, but he relied on the integrity of Germany, a trait that had been proven lacking time and again prior to that date.

Apparently, Stalin refused to believe in any integrity of the Allies while placing too much faith in a country which had consistently violated pacts and agreements.

On such a large scale, integrity or the lack of it creates enormous effects, trade wars, shooting wars.

On a lesser scale, and closer to home, Americans are exposed every day to the way integrity works … or doesn’t, specifically in the realm of politics.

It sometimes seems integrity has taken a vacation — maybe a complete desertion — from the halls of our statehouses, Congress and the White House, when those who frequent the halls of these edifices seem to display a complete lack of the trait.

This country appears to have reached a point in its history when adherence to the tenets of a political party takes precedence over adherence to a specific value.

It’s virtually impossible to remember a time when the dichotomy of values has been so apparent, so precisely defined.

Regrettably, the concept of integrity may not be so objective. It’s entirely possible our representatives in government genuinely feel the actions they take really are expressions of their values.

There is certainly no question values are not consistent; many Republicans and Democrats must truly believe the votes they take, the bills they introduce or support, the way they raise money, the way they support their own party to the total exclusion of anything their opposites espouse, are the proper expression of integrity.

Maybe such conduct can occasionally be excused, even justified.

When people believe their representatives have taken action in opposition to what those people, or even the majority, believe, they will question the integrity of that representative.

However, that representative may well be acting in accordance with adherence to his or her own values and values are subjective.

But, when the added reference of incorruptability is thrown into the mix, the actions of representatives must be examined with a more precise microscope, because hardly anyone would disagree with the suggestion money is corrupting politics today.

Congressmen and congresswomen might try to sell the idea they take contributions to aid their campaigns and those contributions will not color their decisions.

Anyone believing that should do a fact check on the integrity of their own belief systems.

Chuck Witt is a retired architect and a lifelong resident of Winchester. He can be reached at chuck740@bellsouth.net.