Curmudgeon
.308 Win
Politics is a cartel. Maybe two if you see a difference between the D's and the R's.
There is always a smaller group that controls the rest. You can vote some out, but the new ones voted in have two choices, to quote Rush- conform or be cast out. By doing what you're told by the uppers in the cartel (mostly fund raising and trash talking the "opposition"). You are afforded some level of enrichment, probably minimally to start and some general protection from scandal and opposition in an election year. Over time, the harder you work and more you can be trusted, the more enrichment and protection you have access to.
The other choice is to "stay true to your values", not go along with what your told and not get any support when you're up for reelection. In this instance you are totally dependent on your constituency and might have to fight through a primary because you didn't play along. This hurts you financially.
I'm not saying there aren't politicians who follow the second route, but they are few and far between and are constantly fighting for their job and fighting within their party. I think Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders to some extent fit in this category.
Everyone else IMO likely follows the first path and is therefore less beholden to their constituents than to their party. R and D alike here. For this reason, your calls, letters, emails and ultimately - votes dont really matter. The ones that get voted out are fallout because they didn't work hard enough for the party or fall within an acceptable level of turnover every cycle. they likely then go on to be lobbyists and still earn for the party despite not holding elected office. Mark Grisanti comes to mind here.
Anyone have any thoughts on this?
There is always a smaller group that controls the rest. You can vote some out, but the new ones voted in have two choices, to quote Rush- conform or be cast out. By doing what you're told by the uppers in the cartel (mostly fund raising and trash talking the "opposition"). You are afforded some level of enrichment, probably minimally to start and some general protection from scandal and opposition in an election year. Over time, the harder you work and more you can be trusted, the more enrichment and protection you have access to.
The other choice is to "stay true to your values", not go along with what your told and not get any support when you're up for reelection. In this instance you are totally dependent on your constituency and might have to fight through a primary because you didn't play along. This hurts you financially.
I'm not saying there aren't politicians who follow the second route, but they are few and far between and are constantly fighting for their job and fighting within their party. I think Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders to some extent fit in this category.
Everyone else IMO likely follows the first path and is therefore less beholden to their constituents than to their party. R and D alike here. For this reason, your calls, letters, emails and ultimately - votes dont really matter. The ones that get voted out are fallout because they didn't work hard enough for the party or fall within an acceptable level of turnover every cycle. they likely then go on to be lobbyists and still earn for the party despite not holding elected office. Mark Grisanti comes to mind here.
Anyone have any thoughts on this?
