Politics is like a game of cards, but much simpler. The rules are:
1. Get yourself known to the public so that your name would be recognized on the ballot. It doesn't make a difference how this is accomplished, but it helps if it not due to any type of lewd or criminal behavior - although this would not necessarily exclude your candidacy. Make sure that you get the favor of the political leadership of the party you favor since you have virtually no chance without it, and even less a chance if it is not a major party.
2. Acquire a lot of money by promising favors and buying loyalty from those who hope to gain favor in your purview of administration. If you have the favor of the party, they will help you get the money for your campaign. Otherwise, no chance.
3. Dig up as much dirt on your opponent(s) as possible. It is not a requirement that the issues be true, only that those issues would be difficult to disprove - at least until the election is over. Generalities regarding the opponent's party is always fair game.
4. Buy as much media time as you can afford (it's campaign money anyway), and slander your opponent just shy of legal trouble. Avoid making promises except in generalities as this may backfire on you. Make sure you are well dressed and looking good as this is what the public wants. What you say is of little importance.
5. If elected, you are home free to do what you want. Fiscal management is not your responsibility because it can always be blamed on someone else. Enjoy the perks and use whatever you can to your advantage. You need something, get it and put it on the government tab. You now have power and, if handled shrewdly, a somewhat unlimited source of money.
This type of campaigning has been true ever since there have been candidates vying for the same position. It was true in our government since it's inception in the late 18th century. Although, the above rules are somewhat sarcastic, they are not far from the truth. Are we naive enough to believe that every politician has our best interest in mind? I believe that even the most altruistic fall by the wayside when they realize that the only way to keep their position is to "follow the party line" regardless of what is best for the people. Choosing "the least offensive candidate" is NOT a reasonable choice. Apparently, neither is qualification.
What the people of this great country want is relative peace and prosperity. Neither word should be taken in the absolute, but rather as a state of being free of tyranny and having unjust limits placed on our freedoms. Prosperity does not imply wealth (which is an arbitrary term anyway); prosperity is the freedom to obtain a satisfying livelihood through one's own abilities. As such, it is not, nor should it ever be, the purview of ANY governmental body to limit that personal responsibility.
Governments are responsible to ensure the safety of their constituents, but not to ensure everyone's welfare. The exception would be for the assistance of those persons who are unable to maintain a viable standard of life. When government expands its purview into the private sector, or overrides it's constitutional authority, it is wrong. In a democracy, government should not dictate how people must live. That is socialism. The more control government has, the less the people have to decide what is best for their lives. That is not democracy.
