I could end this article by stating that politicians only care about their future—as politicians. In no realm is there so much competition as in politics. Even in typical sports, in which even the land of Lagom fights for supremacy in normal football, or in hockey—the country of Sweden—competitors have a modicum of honor.
Politics is dirty because it is a dirty sport. Politicians don’t care about destroying a person’s honor, digging up a past that a man or a woman has moved away from, in order to smirch an otherwise exemplary life. Old cheating, be it in a relationship or in a game, is displayed before the public eye as a means to destroy. Politics only wins by the destruction of people. Total destruction.
It is human nature to want to win. Losing means “you’re not good enough.” But there is more to political rivalry than the pain of being seen as a loser. The benefits that come with attaining public office far supersede those of normal folk. It is a fast ticket to fame and power, and to all the perks that come with it.
Far be it from me to say that no politician cares about you. Some are deluded as much as to lose sight of reality for the sake of what they consider “good.” Logical thinking has rarely been the hallmark of politics. Those who endorse government policies when it comes to spending a big chunk of tax payer money insist say that governments are not like households, that they live virtually in another dimension. In my neck of the woods that is called religion, easily stated with no cogent explanation to follow the argument. And yet it goes as broke the same way a household goes broke that spends beyond its means. So riddle me this!
Come midterm elections, or any election, it is easy to spot where a politician’s alliance lies. It is not with the people. Government shutdown caused by rebel members of one party sets off a storm within said party among its most moderate members, who are concerned that the next ballot checks will slice their seats in half. If this is not about political future, I don’t know what is.
When Obama, not an economist or an investor, gave half a billion dollars to Solyndra—a solar company in California already hobbled by losses and investors’ lack of confidence—he did not do it to help its workers. He did it for his future, and his party’s future. Had the company succeeded, he would have taken credit. If it didn’t, well, it was not his money after all. He did not go to the bank and write a five-hundred-million dollar check to Solyndra.
When did an equal-under-the-law exponent within the Republican or Democrat front ever offer an amendment to the constitution to allow gay marriage in every state? It took a gay couple to do the dirty work. When the Supreme Court determined that denying persons of the same gender to marry one another was unconstitutional, Obama took the credit.
A fan takes credit for a goal a guy on the pitch just made. Ridiculous!
When George W. Bush began his bailout of major companies in 2008, it was not because he believed it was the right thing. He’s not a Keynesian. Though he was leaving office, he did it for alliance to his party, not to the people.
It is true that some politicians compromise their convictions for higher goals. But higher goals don’t come around unless one takes steps to them. Little gains in one direction profit very little those higher goals, since they are always pushed back. Food don’t get cooked unless you put it on the pan. Otherwise, it is pushed back to make room for more tenable, easy-to-cook stuff. In short, don’t get on the pitch if you’re not going to kick the ball. People do not elect politicians for their political future, but for the deluded concept that a politician can improve their lives.
There is only one way a politician can improve people’s lives—by leaving them the hell alone, or by not running for a political future but for that of society, which means tough decisions must be made, and you must be ready to put your neck under Madame La Guillotine if necessary for that “higher goal.”