Now, hear me out.

 

Whenever an election is held, after the votes have been counted (and recounted) or an eventual winner is selected by whatever means at hand, some people are happy, some people are unhappy, and some people couldn't care less.

 

The ones who are happy are those candidates who won, the ones who are unhappy are the candidates who lost--especially the incumbents--and the ones who couldn't care less are the voters who didn't have any time or money invested in the election.

 

If elections and their outcome were really important, then 100% voter turnouts would be common, instead of the pathetic 35% turnout that is common in non-presidential elections and the hoped-for 50% turnout in presidential-election years, both of which are pitiful in a democracy.

 

In other words, more often than not the majority of people eligible to vote don't bother, and thus they are left with "You get what you didn't vote for" and deserve the epithet of "booboisie" given them by H.L. Mencken.

 

On the other hand, unless the minority of people who DO care about the outcome of elections and the future of the nation can convince the nonvoters of the importance of voting and making their choices known, then we are ALL stuck with "We get what the booboisie didn't vote for."

 

And more often than not, that is the candidates with the most money or who were able to bamboozle the voters with false promises, lies, and negative campaign ads against their opponents.

 

"Realpolitik" is "politics based on practical and material factors rather than on theoretical or ethical objectives."  American politics today could be called "greedpolitik" or "panderpolitik," depending on the objective of the candidates who are running for office, when in fact it should be "purepolitik."

 

There is only one possible reason for people to choose a career in politics, and that is in order to serve their own best interests. However, that selfish reason can also be divided into four others, depending on the major concern of the aspiring politicians and the group with which they most identify:  1) the human race and therefore they want to work for the betterment of everyone, which would be purepolitik; 2) Big Business interests and therefore they take as much money as they can in campaign contributions, bribes (otherwise known as political-action-committee "donations"), and so-called "gifts," which would be greedpolitik; 3) their own personal interests and therefore they will do anything for anyone and any group in order to stay in office, which would be panderpolitik; and 4) their family, because they come from a politically involved extended family, politics is what the family DOES, and therefore they work to satisfy the family's interests, which could be called "familypolitik."

 

Of course, there will be overlap, and therefore politicians who believe they are practicing purepolitik can also believe the best interests of the public are served by their staying in office, and thus they are afraid to speak out against the current administration for fear of losing an election, which is panderpolitik and what happened with the Democrats in the 2002 elections, even though they are known for being the liberal party and the ones most benevolent and compassionate toward the working classes.

 

And even though Republicans pay lip service to working "for the people," it is common knowledge that they are the conservative party that supports Big Business interests over the average-worker's interests, and they are still trying to make the failed policy of "trickle-down economics" work by calling it "tax cuts," still speaking out against the straw man of "Big Government," and still lining their own pockets, the pockets of their cronies both before, during, and after they leave office, and the pockets of anyone else who will help them in their causes of greedpolitik, panderpolitik, and familypolitik.

 

In 1952 the head of General Motors said to the Senate Committee on Armed Services, "For years I thought what was good for our country was good for General Motors, and vice versa.  The difference did not exist."  That has become popularized as "What's good for General Motors is good for the U.S.A." and, of course, read "Big Business" for "General Motors."

 

Mark Twain wrote, "It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly American criminal class except Congress."

 

Given the events of the accounting and Big Business scandals over the past few years, should we not also add "and Big Business administrators" to that quote?

 

Greed kills.