The populace is so brainwashed/naive that they can't even conceive of the POSSIBILITY that their sociopathic/psychopathic 'leaders' are capable of doing anything to keep and expand their power...if people think that 'conspiracies' to manipulate the public into ceding more power to their 'leaders' are 'impossible', then no amount of evidence to the contrary will ever change their minds.
Most people aren't sociopaths/psychopaths so can't get their minds around the FACT that there are, indeed, deeply disturbed individuals out there who are incapable of feeling empathy for others & actually LIKE hurting other people...the smartest, most conniving, most ruthless of these kinds of people are NATURALLY going to gravitate towards positions of power that allow them to play out their sick desires of dominating/hurting other people.
So, while people on some level realize that sociopaths/psychopaths exist, the idea that these sickos could claw their way to the top of the political-power structure to become Senators, CIA/DHS/FBI/NSA Directors, Cabinet-level administrators, Judges, and, yes, Presidents either doesn't occur to them or is so awful to contemplate that their minds go into cognitive-dissonance mode.
That's actually true and it's proven by numerous researches. However, claiming that all political figures exhibit psychopathic or sociopathic behavior is wrong.
In fact, the corruptible nature of humans, which every political science student learns about, is the reason why democratic societies have established a comprehensive system of laws (checks and balances), which should, in theory (but sometimes not in practice), disallow all power to be readily available to and exploitable by a single individual.
I didn't say ALL of them are (just the smartest and most ruthless, LOL)...but even the non-sickos are in positions where they're REQUIRED to dominate/hurt other people...
IMO, the idea of "checks and balances" is largely illusory and based on faulty logic. The theory is that the different branches of govt. will work against each other, but there is nothing to stop them from working together. The idea that judges appointed by a particular president are going to be 'neutral' and 'independent' is just laughable...the idea that members of a particular party won't abuse their power when they gain full control of the political apparatus is laughable...the idea that a president in charge of the military and every other federal agency won't abuse his power is laughable.
Now, there may be better ways than what exists in the USA to set-up a system, but its pretty apparent to me that the American system has been almost a total failure in its stated aim of keeping govt. small and limited.
A Presidential democracy has its flaws, but is also faster to react to any threats, as it only takes a single individual to take the final decision. Think of the following - if the US is attacked, would you have a slow bureaucracy, a hippie for a president or a ruthless psychopath, who knows how to achieve what he wants? Let's hope these are not the only choices :)
Another problem is that the current US presidential election was turned into a media show. At what point were the actual skills and knowledge of both potential candidates tested?
As far as checks and balances, the idea should be that government organizations fight for funding and power. If they coexist peacefully, then the system is flawed, I agree.
Double-edged sword I guess...interestingly, in the first several elections, I think the VP used to be the guy who was runner-up in the race for president...
Allowing virtually everyone (even stupid/lazy people, people w/conflicts-of-interest, etc.) to vote along w/having the govt. 'educate' the citizens, the only real universal requirement being you've made it to age 18, has guaranteed "appeal-to-the-lowest-common-denominator" politics.
An cool thought experiment would be to try to come up w/a better system.
Indeed. Democracy is sometimes lax when it comes to choosing well educated and balanced people. Maybe that's the thing - psychopaths are forcing themselves to be elected and normal people simply back off :)
One more thing about your comment, you mention needing a strong executive to react to threats, but how is it that the USA w/its 2 MUCH weaker neighbors to the North & South and vast oceans to the East & West has been pretty much constantly at war since its inception, esp. w/regards to managing to find its way into 2 major 20th-century European Wars while...Switzerland, which was smack-dab in the middle of the European Warzone, managed to stay out and has generally been at peace for 100's of years?
Since the War Of 1812 (which the USA actually started by foolishly declaring war on England), and esp. into the 20th century, what other nations have actually WANTED to fight the USA and why do so many Americans come off sounding so paranoid about "threats" even though the USA is pretty much unconquerable & is so overwhelmingly powerful than anyone else?
Switzerland is a very special case - at that time, they were holding most of the public and private funds (of political leaders) in Europe. No one would dare disrupt their own economy during war. Funnily enough, cryptocurrencies might be the end of Switzerland's neutrality and financial importance :)
The US has very few natural resources and taking over this country's land is relatively pointless. However, as the World's Police, as they are often referred to, they often meddle in other country's politics (and to get to their resources too, of course). This makes them a perfect target for hit and run tactics (terrorist attacks), which should, in theory, force the US population to vote against foreign intervention.
The reason why this hasn't happened yet, is because the US economy thrives on cheap fuels from other countries. As long as there's a conflict in the Arab world, fuel will be sold on the cheap, because local regimes and ISIS need cash for weapons - the more fuel they sell, the more weapons they will get.
The other major fuel producer, Russia, is not at all happy that Arab fuels are cheap - they have to lower their own prices as well, which makes their shaken economy even weaker. This is why they recently intervened in the conflict and support the pro-Russian government of Assad.
Now consider all of the above - the US has to fear Arab terrorists (who don't like the idea of a meddling World Police), Russians (who don't like America's plan for cheap fuels), as well as local political radicals, which act as terrorists as well. That's the price of having cheap fuel - living in fear.
Soon they will have another problem - their main export destination, Europe, will have a huge cheap workforce of Syrians, which means that the US may end up importing more than exporting - in effect making their economy weaker.
From my own experience: sales.
Examples?
It certainly takes a certain type of personality to want to become a politician of any persuasion. I see a total lack of empathy in someone's personality as a sign of evil. There's probably not much difference between a high achieving individual who ruthlessly gets 'to the top' in their profession, and a serial killer. One goes after money, excitement and power; the other goes after excitement and power.
That's the scary thing...it'll be the more capable sickos who go into govt...the ones best able to hide their tendencies and manipulate people...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychopathy#In_the_workplace : "Robert Hare claims that the prevalence of psychopathic traits is higher in the business world than in the general population, reporting that while about 1% of the general population meet the clinical criteria for psychopathy, figures of around 3-4% have been cited for more senior positions in business."
I wonder what the % is for people in govt. (politicians, cops, military, etc.) who LITERALLY have a legal license to KILL other people?
Very well stated. Kinda sanitized for mass consumption though. The general public is stupid, easily manipulated, easily controlled. The powers that be have these dipshits arguing over where a tranny can take a shit. SMH I don't know how old you are but, it's gonna get worse when the half retarded young people we've raised start taking over with thier "gender studies" degree! We're fucked man......
I'm 42 and remember thinking the PCness was getting ridiculous 20 years ago...its to the point of parody now, but the SJWs take themselves oh-so-seriously...Leftist intellectuals on campus (Boomers who are stuck in 1968) have done a great job poisoning the minds of an entire generation...
Insulting your audience. Great way to influence people. Calling them 'dummies' and 'sheep' won't do much to change any minds.
If you're not a dummy you shouldn't be offended.
exactly my point. If you offend all the dummies (translation: those people with whom you disagree). then how do you expect to bring them over to your point of view. Is that your intention? If it's not your intention what is?
Well, I've gotten more replies to this article than most, so I guess calling people "dummies" didn't hurt...
Sad but true.
Congratulations @kingkrawdad! You have received a personal award!
Click on the badge to view your Board of Honor.
Congratulations @kingkrawdad! You received a personal award!
You can view your badges on your Steem Board and compare to others on the Steem Ranking
Vote for @Steemitboard as a witness to get one more award and increased upvotes!