[cheriot]

Well said. I agree with everything you say except perhaps the focus on politicians. It's a group of people self selected for the ability to sell us a vision with only a distant, vague prospect of realizing it. On the other hand, there are non-profits with readily visible outcomes.

[gumby]

> It's a group of people self selected for the ability to sell us a vision with only a distant, vague prospect of realizing it.

That's unnecessarily and destructively cynical. There are plenty of politicians (and others working for governments) at all levels who are there to do a good job.

The showboats and bad actors (which are almost coextensive) of course by definition get most of the press. Don't let them distract you.

[cheriot]

The whole point of checks and balances is to deal with the cold reality that politicians can't be trusted. But they can still be useful! As long as the system of elections work, they need to find a set of policy priorities that builds a winning coalition.

That leads me to the conclusion that the best way to influence politics is not through the politician themselves, but through advocacy groups that can shift the political incentives.

Even the politicians celebrated by history made awful compromises to maintain a winning coalition. LBJ's relationship with MLK for example.

[pessimizer]

> There are plenty of politicians (and others working for governments) at all levels who are there to do a good job.

The statement was about how they're selected. They're selected by their eagerness to be in politics, and their ability to talk a good game.