Hello goat,
Did you see Obama's 29-acre estate on Martha's Vineyard? Betraying the world pays well.
Here's how I look at it. We have this Constitution, our government structural outline. I can't think of a better national guidance, so I support the Constitution. It says we will have a president. It is a needed function. We are a nation with a lot of different viewpoints that we have to somehow consider when picking a president. We all have a chance to vote for who it is. Nobody has any individual power without convincing others to join in a political organization we call a party. We currently have 2 very powerful parties. Up until now, we individuals have had to pick one party or throw away our vote as a sort of protest statement. That forces us to choose either a symbolic gesture or select the party which best aligns with our views. Nobody gets everything they want, so it is ultimately a matter of compromise. We can demand all the perfection we like, but if we want to be realistic and help guide the nation, we have to go left or right. I choose left because it better represents the diversity I believe exists in this nation. I also voice my views and try to help steer the party of my choice, the Democratic Party.
Because of the situation where money buys so much power, both parties are showered with big money from wealthy corporations and individuals. We non-rich individuals are at a huge disadvantage compared to big corporations because we only live so many decades, and they are pretty much immortal, having far longer than us to accumulate wealth. There is a threshold of wealth, above which, great power ensues with the ability to throw big wealth around, most individuals never attain.
So yes, it is very frustrating. Most of us are stuck in this relatively powerless position. Virtually everyone who seeks office in one of the parties is bound to be showered with wealth. Presidents get a lot. It doesn't matter which party. And that's not always a bad thing. The more wealth a president gets, the more likely the lousy job might attract a good candidate. It is already true that talented individuals can earn a lot more wealth in the private sector. And who really wants to put themselves out there publicly for scrutiny of every time they walk up some steps, down a ramp, or take a drink of water. Most people prefer to have their life be private.
We have had some good presidents and some bad ones. Can you imagine how limited the pool of potential candidates might be if the position entailed all the public scrutiny, but no wealth? Well, if you think we have lousy choices now, that would make it worse.
I can't think of a president who was so virtuous and popular that they could decline all the money thrown at them, still get elected and have lots of political capital to be effective, do the job, and then end up only modestly wealthy. Perhaps Jimmy Carter comes to mind. We didn't appreciate him. We raked him over the coals. But if we actually examine his performance, he was pretty amazing. Vastly underappreciated.
America doesn't
want that squeaky clean virtuous president you are envisioning. We are far too hung up on shallow stuff and instant gratification.
Are you looking for a leader who says things like: 'Human identity is no longer defined by what one does but rather by what one owns.' ?
We
HAD one. He was rejected and replaced with a big money taking, pro-consumerism, 'what one owns' kind of leader.
Kind of a toughie, eh?
We never get to run our country with the presidents we would LIKE. We have to have our country with the presidents we GET. And we have nobody to blame but ourselves. We put 'em there! We can wish for idealism all we like, but we have to live in the real world as it is.
