Thomaska
Greetings!
A 'poser' for sure but before getting into the issue itself I think it's appropriate that we recognize that "normal" behavior..(yes that's arguable..
doesn't deserve praise or acclaim. The expectation we place on each other is that we comport ourselves with honesty integrity and respect for our fellows and that expectation applies eaqually to politicians and aspiring candidates....
Why do people become involved in seeking public office? Many see issues and situations that cry out for if not redress at least address. Some perhaps accept that their responsibility to the larger community, the "body" of mankind demands that representation be made on behalf of those members of society who through some series of events or overarching conditions do not recieve the attention nor find it within themselve's to actively participate in working to bring order to the chaos that inevitably erupts any time a group of human beings is brought or forced together. The nature of humanity is that (sorry if you find this offensive) men are
not created equal....
The vast majority of people have a legitimate 'fear' of taking a step that sets them outside the safety of the herd. This anxiety to be seen as choosing to be separate from the many, that will entail public speaking or publishing of views opinions and ideas that might not 'sit-well' with that larger majority can be a daunting notion. Although humankind is termed a "social animal" that construct of identity is tacitly accepted as 'part-of' or 'party-to' the bulk of human membership within a social organizing principle.
In most cases membership in a community requries if not acquiesence to the ethos of the group, at least a willingness to conform to the structures/frameworks regarded as necessary and appropriate to that membership. While a basketball team or football team or any "team" for that matter is a group membership with a particular focus on an identifiable 'goal', without the oversight and leadership dynamic arriving in the form of a captain or a "leader", the efforts of the individual team members may be outstanding but the cohesion and mutuality of purpose and endeavor may prove less than adequate to the task.
Whether we like to admit it or not, we (human beings) look for and are willing to subscribe to a "leadership" or commit our efforts to the cause or issue that only a few and sometimes only the "one" has the skill and "authority" to characterize and establish as the outcome most desirable to the group.
The dynamics of "leadership" are varied and many, but the question I'd ask is why do the majority of people appear to be more than willing to subscribe to and participate in an enterprise like 'government' when after hundreds of years and examples far too numerous to provide, the "wealthy", the entrepreneur, the "rich" having made claim to some legitimate "right" of office are then proven time and time again to be subject to a propensity to "break the rules" and "ignore right and wrong"...?
Certainly part of "leadership" is skill at prioritizing when some action or measure demands that the "rules" be bent.... Although for example a hockey player may see a break-away member of the opposing team with an opportunity to score a goal and potentially change the outcome of the match, breaking some guy's neck or hitting him with your stick while frowned upon as unsportsmanlike....may be quietly aplauded by other team members even though "the team" earns a penalty for this behavior....
We (I believe social and psychological 'conditioning' plays a role) believe that fiscal acumen is indicative of sound judgment.... even if Bear Stearns, Enron fail magnifiently after a period of time, during the "hay-days" we're more than happy to buy into the future of these corporations....
Tough question Thomaska.
