[andyt]

Even the ones that start off wit the public's interest at heart, (as I think they mostly do) get corrupted by the power. In fact they get corrupted before they ever get power, because it costs so much to get elected and you already owe a lot of favors by the time you do. Especially now in the states, where there are no spending limits on corporate donations, it's just going to get worse - unless you happen to believe that the public's interest is the same as the corporate - they are the job givers after all.

The way the US is turning right, maybe they should just incorporate it, every citizen can own shares in it and vote those shares. Of course the more shares you own the more votes you get.

I think we've created a monster with publicly traded corps. Their only goal is short term profit for the shareholders, but they're recognized as having the rights of an individual and we don't seem to want to put limits on them. Maybe corps will become the new countries, and you're Applese or an Exxonian or a Walmartish. Just hope you don't get laid off and become stateless.

[Psudo]

Andyt, that analysis is more cynicism and bile than reality.

CKASlacker, how can the personal incentives to run for office be objectively measured or controlled by policy? Without something solid like that to reason from, all I have to go by is gut reaction, and my gut reaction says people are too diverse to be so easily generalized into "the politician type," who are inevitably corrupted, and "everyone else," who can't get into office anyway. Disillusionment is not evidence.

[Teikiatsu]

Anyone who wants to be president requires a certain amount of narcissism. Some have more than others.

JJ wrote:

My point was more that credibly argued allegations of promiscuity against politicians tend to have a very high record of accuracy, especially when the guy in question has the archetypical alpha-male type personality that makes him highly predisposed towards promiscuity in the first place.

Point of order: Cain has never held political office. He's been a businessman/CEO where the threat of sexual harrassment carries a much higher consequence.

[CKASlacker]

Psudo wrote:

CKASlacker, how can the personal incentives to run for office be objectively measured or controlled by policy? Without something solid like that to reason from, all I have to go by is gut reaction, and my gut reaction says people are too diverse to be so easily generalized into "the politician type," who are inevitably corrupted, and "everyone else," who can't get into office anyway. Disillusionment is not evidence.

I put that forth only as a theory -- it's obviously a little naive to suggest that there's only n types of people with regards to politics, where n is a small integer. JJ has commented a few times (this cartoon and others) about the "alpha-male" being attracted to politics, perhaps moreso than others. And said alpha-males being more inclined towards political leadership would thus weight the numbers in their favour.

That said, there's no law that says that when you desire political leadership you *must* leverage that position of power in extra-marital affairs and sexual conquests. But I would also put forth that women in general *are* attracted to men in positions of power (probably an evolutionary thing at some level) -- how many times can a man say 'no'? Even one 'yes' to an attractive intern spells trouble in the long run. But these guys are human in the end, and people make mistakes. Not enviable, but it's reality sometimes.

Teikiatsu wrote:

Anyone who wants to be president requires a certain amount of narcissism. Some have more than others.

I would agree with that too.

[N_Fiddledog]

JJ wrote:

My point was more that credibly argued allegations of promiscuity against politicians tend to have a very high record of accuracy,

Could be, but what would that have to do with the unsupported allegations from anonymous sources provided in Politico's smear of Cain? Even when a couple of women did come forward, neither was credible.

[Psudo]

CKASlacker wrote:

how many times can a man say 'no'? Even one 'yes' to an attractive intern spells trouble in the long run.

I think your second sentence answers the question posed by your first. Anyone who puts the consequences of the future ahead of the hedonistic indulgence of the present would say 'no.'

You're right that people aren't good at living by absolute principles, but the blatant obviousness of this principle should reasonably act as a significant deterrent. There is a certain element of stupidity to the decision of someone so clearly in the public eye to make such a clearly dangerous decision. Virtually everyone has a sex drive, but it's deeply self-destructive to put someone's sex drive in charge of the operation of a nation.

This actually borders on a favorite topic of mine: the difference between doing that which is good now and doing what will produce good consequences later. Whatever balance between the two is chosen by a person is probably going to reflect in all their choices, both in their official capacity and in their personal lives.