Party or country?

[Dill]

(07-15-2017, 05:17 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Getting back to your post, bolded in particular.  I truly think that we have reached a point where everyone that chooses a life of politics, (and politics shouldn't be a career, in my opinion) is tainted in one way or another.  Once any given politician reaches a certain level of success (getting to Washington) they are forced to "go along with the program" (party agenda) in order to remain in Washington.  Personally, I feel that if there were term limits, a lot of career minded politicians would just not even enter the arena.  Those candidates should be chosen by their populous for their works, not because they have "raised the campaign funding".  Anyway, enough of my blathering.  Your post just made me think.

Sunset, I agree with your points here.  I would just like to add two more.

1. It isn't just Washington that forces people to "go along with the program." Think of what happened to Eric Cantor. Voters often choose bad candidates and place impossible demands on them, then blame "Washington" when their one Congressman or Senator cannot do what they want.  The demand for "outsiders" is often a cover for voter incompetence. And when they get the outsiders they want, at least at the national level the results are rarely good. They are disastrous at the level of president.

2. Again, as Millhouse pointed out above, because people need funds for election, they tend to be more beholden to people who contribute those funds than to their voters. So someone who contributes a million dollars to a campaign has more influence than an entire township of voters.  I agree that contributors should not have this power. But until we change campaign finance laws, we must accept that the votes of the donor class count more than ours do.  Voters COULD change this, but they would have to re-priortize and not let the campaign spending distract them from the issue.