It's too bad that modern politics seems to attract so many people

with an unhealthy need for attention.

Was it always this way? I could be wrong, but I think today's 24/7 news cycle and media system are making it worse. Fewer people are going into politics simply because they'd like to be public servants; and more, consciously or lot, are driven by their narcissistic needs for attention and approval.

It is lonely standing without approval.

But much of what some think of as approval is false, and really a taking of something from them anyways. If you cooperated with a thief, he would give you approval, as would cooperating with a cop.

So it has to be more then a desire for approval.

It can be lonely standing without approval from some 'group' or another.

But much of what some think of as approval is false, and really a taking of something from them anyways. If you cooperated with a thief, he would give you approval, as would cooperating with a cop.

So it has to be more then a desire for approval.



I have noticed, the systems used to try and break me, try to use that. When I post something that conforms to criminal robbery, anarchy, and not caring about people. There is a string of positive posts. When I stand for Justice and Compassion there is a string of negative post.

Long ago I figured that is an attempt at conditioning. It is not approval that should be looked for, but a good argument, and reasoned thought that is relevant and helps society in caring ways.

And that sends me the beer and travel money that is due. And that has not happened yet.

I don't always "get" exactly what you're driving at in your posts, but I appreciate the sideways nature of many of them.

They can make for a nice jolt to a different perspective.





I hope that was neither too positive nor too negative - the only conditioning I'm interested in right now is my air conditioning.

Not that heredity or other random methods for selecting leaders are better, but it is inevitable in a self-selecting system that you will not have a truly random sampling. Obviously, because most political offices are (and always have been) high profile and relatively low pay, candidates are most likely to be ego driven than anything else.

It doesn't mean that no one ever runs for dog catcher, mayor, congress, etc. without wanting to serve, it just means that you're more likely to find people who want to serve and be "famous" running for office. You don't hear about those that want to serve but don't want the fame (if they are smart or talented, they avoid the fame they don't like).

We tend to gloss over the past, and there have certainly been exceptions, but the ego issue has and always will be an factor in free elections.