My point exactly. As Machiavelli wrote in "The Prince" (paraphrased because I don't recall his exact words) If apparently virtuous things keep you from gaining power, or keeping it once you have gained it, (in this case we are talking about sensible pro American leadership for America that does not rape us on taxes , kill our jobs and aid our enemies) then it is in fact no virtue, since it may make the individual feel good but destroys the state.
This is my gripe with "Bible thumpers" they selfishly put their own spiritual gain above the practical needs of the country.
Tom, I have been thinking for some time about something you said a little while ago. What you said was something like -You do what you have to do to get into power, then you use that power to do what is right for the country- something to that effect. After watching the failure of "good politicians" I can't disagree....but
... again after thinking about agreeing, it became clear that if you needed to use any means to gain power, you would, on the same hand, need to use any means to stay in power. (Which is pretty much what you say in your quoted post above). Well, that is where I become concerned.
We have not eliminated the problem, we just give another "team" the chance to "rape us on taxes, kill our jobs and aid our enemies", if they feel they need to do so to secure their ability to stay in power.
And I'm not picking on the Republicans or Democrats. I have said I am a Libertarian. We don't need to discuss the pros/cons of Libertarians, I'm just using them as an example. I am Libertarian because I think they are more of what I think the country needs than either the other two. They have refereed to as the party of principal and I has seen it demonstrated by their candidates to accept matching federal funds for the campaign they had raised. After realizing that put their candidates at a significant disadvantage financially, they changed the police and left it up to the individual candidate to accept or not. So, just like the other parties, they are willing to sacrifice some of their principles in order to gain power.
My concern then is that they would be willing to sacrifice more of them to place more of their candidates in office and then again to keep them in office and it becomes "Politics As Usual".
I don't have much faith in any party to not become corrupted when they gain the rationale to compromise principles in order to gain and keep power.
Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely. And Lesser Power Corrupts as much as it is able to become Absolute Power.
I don't have what I consider as good solutions to all this, but as you have been "spouting this crap"
longer, perhaps you, or anyone else here, does?
The only measures I can think of that might help..and they both have drawbacks are:
1. Short Term Limits. Keeps the corruptible from gaining power. It also keeps the good politicians from gaining power...but gaining power is a risk, it seems.
2. Making violating the Constitution and your oath of office a capital offense. For sure a few public hangings of politicians who accepted bribes for their votes and for those offering those bribes would tend to dampen the enthusiasm in that market. We would have to lay those rules on Justices also, since they can also violate their oaths and the Constitution. So we have a problem on who decides if the oath and the Constitution has been violated. Also, what is a bribe? Surely a political contribution can be considered a bribe in a lot of circumstances, so how to you distinguish between "honest" contributions and "corrupt" ones?
Whew...maybe we will get some helpful observations.
MBTV
Forum Index
Help
Calendar
Contact Info
Register as a member
Poll
