and Republican juggernauts and often just end up as spoilers. Would Bill Clinton have been elected without Ross Perot? Would George W. Bush have won his first presidential election without the help of Ralph Nader? And it can’t be said that Ross Perot or Ralph Nader weren’t themselves products of special interests.

But, after all of that, I don’t believe it’s hopeless. The system, although flawed, works. Even though the voters are largely ignored, the divergent forces and interests of the media, parties, and special interests tend to keep each other somewhat honest. And, as will be discussed in a f

Relative rankings of various professions based upon respect for the profession usually find politicians at or close to the bottom. Our conversations linger over frustration and disgust concerning our local, state and national political leaders. We often hear, “I voted for the lesser of two evils.” The media feed upon the misdeeds and missteps of our leaders.

I must confess that it’s been a long time since I’ve gotten excited over any politician. In my youth, some leaders appeared to me to stick to their principles, including Barry Goldwater, Bill Proxmire and even Jerry Ford. Today I can’t think of a person who hasn’t been at least tainted by their parties, special interests, media attention and the continuous campaign to get re-elected.

So, is it possible, in today’s world, to become a political leader and still preserve the ideals that drove you into public service? Could a Mr. Smith ever go to Washington and not turn into a Mr. Sell-out? Will the ongoing pressure to get re-elected, attention from fawning lobbyists, the need to please the media, and fund raising inevitably force even the most idealistic to compromise their hopes? While politics must be about some level of compromise, will the need to give others something in order to get your objectives accomplished eventually poison your purpose? Must differing even a little with your party’s stand on the issues mean political suicide?

In the early days of the U.S., farmers, merchants and lawyers often left their occupations for a period of public service. They served a term or two as governor, mayor or senator and then returned to their livelihood. Political life wasn’t a lifetime career for them and it might have been easier to hold to one’s principles throughout. But is that even an option anymore?

Although I welcome your comments to the contrary, I fear that today’s system is so distorted that it is no longer possible to maintain one’s ideals in political life for very long. Furthermore, I don’t believe that it is even possible to truly represent the wishes of one’s constituency, the voters who elected you. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and the electorate are toward the bottom of the squeaky wheel continuum, falling well behind the media, political parties, lobbyists, special interests, contributors, consultants and campaign managers.

The independent or third party candidates haven’t fared well against the Democratic and Republican juggernauts and often just end up as spoilers. Would Bill Clinton have been elected without Ross Perot? Would George W. Bush have won his first presidential election without the help of Ralph Nader? And it can’t be said that Ross Perot or Ralph Nader weren’t themselves products of special interests.

But, after all of that, I don’t believe it’s hopeless. The system, although flawed, works. Even though the voters are largely ignored, the divergent forces and interests of the media, parties, and special interests tend to keep each other somewhat honest. And, as will be discussed in a fu

a person who hasn’t been at least tainted by their parties, special interests, media attention and the continuous campaign to get re-elected.

So, is it possible, in today’s world, to become a political leader and still preserve the ideals that drove you into public service? Could a Mr. Smith ever go to Washington and not turn into a Mr. Sell-out? Will the ongoing pressure to get re-elected, attention from fawning lobbyists, the need to please the media, and fund raising inevitably force even the most idealistic to compromise their hopes? While politics must be about some level of compromise, will the need to give others something in order to get your objectives accomplished eventually poison your purpose? Must differing even a little with your party’s stand on the issues mean political suicide?

In the early days of the U.S., farmers, merchants and lawyers often left their occupations for a period of public service. They served a term or two as governor, mayor or senator and then returned to their livelihood. Political life wasn’t a lifetime career for them and it might have been easier to hold to one’s principles throughout. But is that even an option anymore?

Although I welcome your comments to the contrary, I fear that today’s system is so distorted that it is no longer possible to maintain one’s ideals in political life for very long. Furthermore, I don’t believe that it is even possible to truly represent the wishes of one’s constituency, the voters who elected you. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and the electorate are toward the bottom of the squeaky wheel continuum, falling well behind the media, political parties, lobbyists, special interests, contributors, consultants and campaign managers.

The independent or third party candidates haven’t fared well against the Democratic and Republican juggernauts and often just end up as spoilers. Would Bill Clinton have been elected without Ross Perot? Would George W. Bush have won his first presidential election without the help of Ralph Nader? And it can’t be said that Ross Perot or Ralph Nader weren’t themselves products of special interests.

But, after all of that, I don’t believe it’s hopeless. The system, although flawed, works. Even though the voters are largely ignored, the divergent forces and interests of the media, parties, and special interests tend to keep each other somewhat honest. And, as will be discussed in a f

need to give others something in order to get your objectives accomplished eventually poison your purpose? Must differing even a little with your party’s stand on the issues mean political suicide?

In the early days of the U.S., farmers, merchants and lawyers often left their occupations for a period of public service. They served a term or two as governor, mayor or senator and then returned to their livelihood. Political life wasn’t a lifetime career for them and it might have been easier to hold to one’s principles throughout. But is that even an option anymore?

Although I welcome your comments to the contrary, I fear that today’s system is so distorted that it is no longer possible to maintain one’s ideals in political life for very long. Furthermore, I don’t believe that it is even possible to truly represent the wishes of one’s constituency, the voters who elected you. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and the electorate are toward the bottom of the squeaky wheel continuum, falling well behind the media, political parties, lobbyists, special interests, contributors, consultants and campaign managers.

The independent or third party candidates haven’t fared well against the Democratic and Republican juggernauts and often just end up as spoilers. Would Bill Clinton have been elected without Ross Perot? Would George W. Bush have won his first presidential election without the help of Ralph Nader? And it can’t be said that Ross Perot or Ralph Nader weren’t themselves products of special interests.

But, after all of that, I don’t believe it’s hopeless. The system, although flawed, works. Even though the voters are largely ignored, the divergent forces and interests of the media, parties, and special interests tend to keep each other somewhat honest. And, as will be discussed in a f

nts to the contrary, I fear that today’s system is so distorted that it is no longer possible to maintain one’s ideals in political life for very long. Furthermore, I don’t believe that it is even possible to truly represent the wishes of one’s constituency, the voters who elected you. The squeaky wheel gets the grease, and the electorate are toward the bottom of the squeaky wheel continuum, falling well behind the media, political parties, lobbyists, special interests, contributors, consultants and campaign managers.

The independent or third party candidates haven’t fared well against the Democratic and Republican juggernauts and often just end up as spoilers. Would Bill Clinton have been elected without Ross Perot? Would George W. Bush have won his first presidential election without the help of Ralph Nader? And it can’t be said that Ross Perot or Ralph Nader weren’t themselves products of special interests.

But, after all of that, I don’t believe it’s hopeless. The system, although flawed, works. Even though the voters are largely ignored, the divergent forces and interests of the media, parties, and special interests tend to keep each other somewhat honest. And, as will be discussed in a f

and Republican juggernauts and often just end up as spoilers. Would Bill Clinton have been elected without Ross Perot? Would George W. Bush have won his first presidential election without the help of Ralph Nader? And it can’t be said that Ross Perot or Ralph Nader weren’t themselves products of special interests.

But, after all of that, I don’t believe it’s hopeless. The system, although flawed, works. Even though the voters are largely ignored, the divergent forces and interests of the media, parties, and special interests tend to keep each other somewhat honest. And, as will be discussed in a future article, the extremes of the left and right tend to, over the long term, drive us down the middle. If you don’t like who’s in charge today, wait a decade or two and your guys will be in charge and will pull things back their way, for better and for worse.

And we shouldn’t forget the democratizing influence of the Internet. The parties and lobbyists can’t stop us bloggers.