[ANALYSIS and OPINION}
[Please note that tables and charts may not display correctly unless they are viewed on a desktop or laptop computer.]
The 2024 election is likely to be an extremely important one that will have serious long term effects not only in the United States but throughout the World. There is a substantial likelihood that 2024 election results will greatly impact our economy, the budget, tax rates, governmental regulation, immigration, the environment, our relationship with NATO, the war in Ukraine, our relations with Russia, Iran, N. Korea, Israel, various other Middle Eastern nations and factions, China and Taiwan, sex discrimination, sexual identity and reproductive issues to name but a few of the big issues. Many say, with some justification, that the world is literally on the brink of a possible third world war. Moreover, given the tremendous controversies surrounding vote counting, the events of January 6, 2021, and the certification of the 2020 election one might add that the very existence of our nation’s democracy could well be at stake as well.
We have endlessly advocated for a more reasoned approach to governmental policy making than the power-seeking, labelling, name-calling, soundbite, vilification and fact-spinning model we witness these days. Calm discussion and rational debate of the issues is not the norm. This is unfortunate because we need calm rational debate now more than ever. This is because a rational debate focuses first asking the right questions, determining what the problem really is, and then on establishing what the objective facts are. In a rational debate it is only after the problem is correctly defned and the objective facts determined does one then assess the probable outcomes of certain proposed policy decisions and weigh the pros and cons of each policy proposal. Decisions made on any basis other than on the basis of the actual objective facts presented cannot possibly solve the problem being addressed because, by definition, they are based in part on faulty assumptions and not the facts. Similarly, decisions that don’t correctly take into account both the existence and the size or amount of the pros and cons of the proposed action are likely to have outcomes that result in unintended consequences which are usually bad.
The fact is that calm rational discussion and debate of the issues is not going to occur unless and until we actually start electing more candidates who actually evidence and demonstrate a willingness to use a rational and patriotic approach (herein a “Rational Approach” as defined in the end notes)[i] in fulfilling the duties of their office if elected. Such candidates we will hereinafter refer to as “Rational and Patriotic Candidates”, and if elected “Rational and Patriotic Officials” and/or simply as “Rational and Patriotic Politicians” or simply “RPPs”.
Candidates and officeholders who make all decisions based primarily upon the position of their party are emphatically not deemed to be RPPs, simply because their approach is not rational if they are actually trying to solve a problem of general societal concern. What they are doing instead is trying to stay in or acquire political power. While it is true that acting to protect oneself is rational as that term is commonly understood, it is not necessarily rational in the context of determining whether a person is a RPP as that term is used in this article. Four fundamental characteristics of a RPP are integrity, intellectual honesty, an ability to admit when one is wrong and the ability to change course and do what’s necessary to solve the problem at hand if he or she is ever shown to be wrong.[ii] In an age where pictures can be manipulated and facts “spun” by various media outlets voting for candidates with integrity and intellectual honesty [iii] is more important than ever. In fact, if our democracy is to be preserved, it is probably the single most important characteristic a politician can have aside from a firm belief in upholding the U.S. Constitution and our democracy. Moreover, the rule of law itself will quickly evaporate if we elect politicians who have engaged in significant criminal activity themselves. This is because the foundational rules of society itself will be shown to be, in the end, meaningless for a select few persons. At that point, everyone will question why they should obey law when others who are more successful don’t.
Let’s be clear, a RPP using a Rational Approach to political decision-making is not always necessarily right and, indeed, it is quite possible, and perhaps even normal for two RPPs employing a Rational Approach to take diametrically opposing positions on an issue and/or to make different decisions. What typically sets a RPP employing a Rational Approach from a candidate or officeholder who does not use a Rational Approach is that the candidates or officeholders in question always act in good faith, with a genuine subjective intent to act in the best interests of all persons who he/she/ or they are elected to serve and not just the folks who voted for him/her/ or them or their political party, and not for purposes of increasing his/her/their personal or family wealth or political, economic or social standing or influence and they otherwise act in a manner consistent with the Rational Approach defined in this article. [iv]
In this regard, if a candidate or an officeholder is truly considering only the overall best interests of the country as a whole, it would be irrational (and sometimes illegal and often worse) for any candidate or office holder to ignore, suppress, misrepresent, twist, distort, “put spin on” or rely upon anything but unbiased objective fact when making a decision, taking a policy position or voting on any proposed law.
Money is a huge reason why it is often difficult to elect RPPs to public office. This is an issue which is best left to a subsequent article. Suffice it to note here that campaign finance laws, political donations and the compensation of public officials all have a major effect on the public’s ability to elect RPPs to public office. The money-in-politics problem should not, and must not, however, be cause for everyone to throw their hands up, shrug their shoulders, sigh and use it as an excuse to accept the severe dysfunction that currently exists in our political system. This is because the fact is that if voters were themselves more disciplined and insistent that their candidates and elected officials acted rationally, that is, be RPPs, then money would have far less effect than it currently does. Why? Because all the money in the world does not actually force anyone to vote for a particular candidate. As long as one is able to learn about a candidate and what their positions are, one is able to vote for that candidate (assuming they are a RPP) no matter how much money there is in their campaign bank account. It all comes down to the voter taking the time necessary to actually learn about the candidates and their positions and then themselves being objective, unbiased and rational in casting their vote. Too few voters today are willing to take the time to do their homework to find out who the RPPs really are.
In short, in the end, if most voters were rational, then we would actually elect more RPPs to public office. By not doing so, voters only have themselves to blame. While some might say that many times there are no RPPs on the ballot, that fact is only further evidence that not enough rational voters actually engage in party politics and/or the nomination process. In any event, if no RPPs appear on the ballot then the voter has no choice but to choose the most honest and candidate available or, if none are on the ballot, then the candidate presenting the least threat to the healthy functioning of government under our Constitution.
On average most people want the same things in life. Money, a nice house, a nice car, to educate their kids, maybe have a vacation place, a boat, and season tickets to their favorite sports teams games to mention but a few common desires. What truly separates most people from one another is the order of their priorities. By this what we mean is the answer to this question: what is a person willing to sacrifice in order to get what they want. In everyday life we normally pay (sacrifice) money in order to buy (get) a nice house. At that point in time when we buy a house, the house is more important to us than the money. The seller of the house on the other hand, wants to obtain money and is willing to sacrifice (sell) the house to get it. To him, money is more important the house.
Politicians are no different. Very often, what separates them is the order of their priorities. If you ask any politician if they are in favor of low tax rates, they all will almost always say yes. If you ask them if they want good schools, they will all say yes. Strong defense? Yes, of course. Balance the budget? Absolutely! If only life were so simple.
However as most of us know, having a strong defense these days often also means raising taxes and/or adopting a budget that does not balance and thus requires the government to spend more than it takes in—which is known as deficit spending. Who’s in favor of deficit spending? Not many politicians would say that they are. However, it seems that more often than not the government ends up with a budget deficit. How can this be? And then, to eliminate or at least reduce the deficit, the question always comes down to the priorities of the politicians involved, matters of degree and good old fashion horse trading. In other words, what exactly is a strong defense and what does it take (or what has to be sacrificed) to get it?
To take a hypothetical example, some might say we need 1,000 jet fighters to provide for the national defense, but others might say 2,000. The problem is that usually we can balance the budget at 1,000 fighters but not at 2,000. Two thousand fighters requires deficit spending. Then, when it comes down to passing the government’s budget, some legislators might be unwilling to sacrifice financial integrity in order to be sure that we have a strong 2,000 fighter defense while others might be willing to have the government incur a budget deficit in order to be more certain that we have a 2,000 fighter defense. The same type of situation arises on the domestic spending front as well.
Every adult knows that we never get everything that we want in life. And this is also true in politics and governing. All proposed laws must be supported by the required number of legislators who will vote for it so that it becomes law. It is unrealistic and unheard of for anyone to get elected to public office and then have the legislature in which they sit pass every proposed law exactly as that particular legislator would have wanted. Moreover, not every proposed law that a legislator is against is going to get voted down. What this means is that if a legislator wants to work to see to it that as many laws as he is for are ultimately passed and that as many laws as he is opposed to fail, then he has to resort to whatever legal means he has available to see to it that this is what happens.
In everyday life the more money you have the more things you can buy, but nevertheless, there’s always something that even the richest desire that for one reason or another they can’t buy. At least rich folks have a lot money to trade in exchange for the goods and services that they desire. This allows them the luxury of being able to get more of what they want.
In politics legislator A cannot induce legislator B to vote for or against a proposed law (or bill) by paying them cash for their vote. This simple fact has significant ramifications. It means that the only way one politician can sway or induce another legislator to vote for or against a bill is to either: (i) convince them of the objective merits of voting for or against a bill outweigh the drawbacks of doing so; (ii) convince them of the re-election or other political consequences (both positive and negative) of voting one way or another on a bill; or (iii) engage in legislative bargaining, a kind of horse-trading.
In a country as large and diverse as the United States, with its various races, religions, ethnics groups and folks of divergent political philosophies situations often arise where getting a majority of legislators to vote one way or another on a bill is difficult. And, unfortunately, it often happens that the bills that are the most important also have the most difficult time getting sufficient votes to be passed. A more recent and concerning example of this has been the federal budget. Passing a budget is absolutely critical to the effective operation of the government. Yet, increasingly, one side or another in the endless debates about the budget and how governmental revenues are spent, will oppose passage of the budget for one reason or another.
In this regard, it seems that voters increasingly condemn any kind of legislative bargaining or compromise because increasingly they seem to be voting into office elected officials who show little or no interest in bargaining with other legislators, especially those holding political philosophies that are different from their own. Either that or any bargaining they do involves a change of position that is so small as to have no chance of actually achieving a compromise with the opposition. This failure to negotiate in good faith with legislators on the other side of an issue is highly dysfunctional and is often a sign of political extremism which is unhealthy in any democracy. This is because the very existence of democracy often depends on the ability of parties with competing interests to compromise and cooperate.[v]
Many politicians claiming to be fiscal conservatives also claim to be defense hawks. The problem is that in many instances, federal budget considerations require that either defense spending or governmental domestic spending (such as on education, the environment and/or any kind of public assistance for the less advantaged) be cut in order to balance the budget. In short, more often than not, it’s impossible for a legislator to be all things to all people and act like a kid in a candy shop with unlimited funds to spend. A legislator cannot be totally committed to balancing the budget, totally committed to having the premier defense in the world and/or totally committed to a comprehensive domestic program all at one time. Sooner or later a legislator is going to have to surrender to budgetary constraints and/or rearrange his or her other legislative priorities in order to achieve his or her overall legislative goals. It is largely because of this constant need to rearrange one’s priorities that budgetary deficits become possible even though many politicians express a desire to balance the budget.[vi]
The bottom line, however, is that sooner or later every legislator has to be willing to give up something that they want in order to get something that he or she wants even more. This is where the importance of their priorities comes into play and this is really what sets one politician apart from another. As such, ascertaining a candidate’s priorities is what most voters should actually focus on most on when deciding how to vote. What goal is most important for candidate A? What is A willing to give up to achieve that goal? Is it defense, domestic, a balanced budget or something else? And just importantly, how much defense or domestic spending is he or she willing to give up to get something else that they favor passed? The same questions then need to be asked about candidate B. Matters of degree, or how much of this or that, is given up or gotten when legislators bargain with each other—in other words—how many dollars of more defense spending is gotten in return for how much deficit spending; or how many additional dollars of domestic spending in return for how much deficit spending? Or alternatively, how many dollars of domestic and/or defense spending is going to be given up in exchange for balancing the budget.
A major problem, of course, is getting candidates to be candid about what their legislative priorities are and the fact of the matter is that sometimes they may not truly know until confronted with the issue because every scenario can present unique challenges and opportunities. However, the fact that it is difficult to determine a candidates priorities doesn’t mean that voters should not try to ascertain a candidates true priorities. Moreover, there ways to infer what a candidate’s priorities are. Incumbents they have a legislative record. Another way is to find their public statements, look at their election flyers etc and determine what they talk about most. And importantly, what are the priorities and public policy positions of that candidate’s party? The position of a candidate’s party will often rise to the level of primary importance for a candidate if he or she wants valuable committee assignments, to get continued campaign funding and/or get renominated for his or her seat during the next election cycle.
During any legislative session, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of bills that any particular legislator has to consider. Let’s assume that none of these bills have a enough votes to get passed by Congress. All of which means too often that nothing happens and if certain things have been promised by the legislators involved, while campaigning for office, they potentially face a hostile electorate in the future.
Let’s also suppose the following scenario with 5 legislators (BalBal, DefDef, DefDom, BalDom, BalDef), who have advocated for and campaigned on the following proposed budgets. Let’s further suppose that BalBal, BalDom and BalDef campaigned loudly and vociferously on balancing the budget and that, so far, none of these proposed budgets have enough votes to actually become the government’s operating budget for the upcoming year. Furthermore, let’s assume that all of the following legislators have solemnly promised not to raise or lower taxes and that they do, in fact, stick to that promise. (In other words, assume that tax revenues are fixed). (Assume all numbers are in billions of dollars.)
……………………………..$Defense $Domestic $Spend $Tax Revenue Budget Balance
Legislator BalBal 50 50 100 100 0
Legislator DefDef 70 50 120 100 -20
Legislator DefDom 50 70 120 100 -20
Legislator BalDom 30 70 100 100 0
Legislator BalDef 70 30 100 100 0
Assume all funds taxed and spent are collected and spent evenly thoughout the entire United States unless specially earmarked to be spent or collected in only one state or district. Assume that each legislator mentioned is from a different state and/or district.
If the President proposes the following budget (Proposal 1) it will fail to pass because of the size of the projected deficit unless three or more of the legislators agree to lessen their budgetary demands and go along with a deficit of 40.
Proposal 1:
……………………………….$Defense $Domestic $Spend $Tax Revenue Budget Balance
President 70 70 140 100 -40
Assume then that the President proposes, instead the following budget Proposal 2:
Proposal 2:
…………………………………$Defense $Domestic $Spend $Tax Revenue Budget Balance
President 60 60 120 100 -20
Again, this proposed budget would fail to get votes from any of the five legislators because the budget would be deficient in at least one respect to each one of them: To Balbal, because of the deficit; to Defdef and Baldef, because of the deficient defense budget (and in Baldef’s case also because of the budget deficit); and to DefDom and BalDom, because of the deficient spending on domestic programs (and in BalDom’s case, also because of the Budget deficit).
In fact, if all five of the legislators stick to their guns and refuse to compromise on anything that means that there would be a government shutdown.
Let’s now assume that BalDom and Baldef become convinced that a government shutdown is not in either their constituents or in the country’s best interests and that it is imperative to engage in legislative bargaining. Thus, BalDom and BalDef agree that BalDom will give up 20 in Domestic spending and to apply that 20 to defense spending. In return, BalDef agrees to give up 20 of defense spending and to apply that 20 to domestic spending. Thus, the proposed budgets would be as follows:
……………………………..$Defense $Domestic $Spend $Tax Revenue Budget Balance
Legislator BalBal 50 50 100 100 0
Legislator DefDef 70 50 120 100 -20
Legislator DefDom 50 70 120 100 -20
Legislator BalDom 50 50 100 100 0
Legislator BalDef 50 50 100 100 0
Thus, since BalBal, BalDom and BalDef have all agreed the legislature can now pass a budget for the President to sign and assuming that the President hasn’t locked himself into providing more domestic and defense expenditure a budget can become law and the government will continue to operate.
The foregoing represents a rather simple and easy fix to the budgetary problem in question.
However, the more likely case is that the President has somehow committed to larger spending for either or both defense and domestic than the 50 level that three of these five legislators have agreed upon. Moreover, we have already seen that President’s Proposal 2 was rejected by BalBal, BalDom and BalDef because of its deficit of 20. Once again, this means that unless the President and/or at least three of these legislators are willing to engage in legislative bargaining, that a government shutdown will occur.
Because of these problems, the President enters another round in the negotiation process and promises $5 in additional funding for additional military facilities in BalDef’s state and $5 of additional teacher funding grans in BalDom’s state. These are known as earmarked funds and go only to the districts served by BalDef and BalDom respectively. Thus, the President’s Proposal 3 is as follows:
Proposal 3:
……………………………$Defense $Domestic $Spend $Tax Revenue Budget Balance
President 55 55 110 100 -10
Remember the following budget, indicated by a *, was the budget passed by Congress that is now awaiting the President’s signature:
………………………………..$Defense $Domestic $Spend $Tax Revenue Budget Balance
* Legislator BalBal 50 50 100 100 0
Legislator DefDef 70 50 120 100 -20
Legislator DefDom 50 70 120 100 -20
*Legislator BalDom 50 50 100 100 0
* Legislator BalDef 50 50 100 100 0
Since defense and domestic line items of the legislators marked * is the budget passed by Congress, it would seem that BalBal, BalDom and BalDef would be satisfied with the level of spending for those items. The problem with the President’s budget is that it projects a budget deficit of 10. This means that unless all three of those legislators are willing to either approve a budget deficit of 10 or agree to raise taxes that the government will have to shut down.
However, the major point is that unless the elected officials in question (both the President and the legislators) are willing to negotiate and bargain with each other—that is, to accept the fact that they are not likely to get everything they want (or everything that they campaigned on) then the government will have to shut down and cease to function. No society or government can continue to exist under such circumstances.
As such, the fact of the matter is that if government is to function then compromise is absolutely necessary. And this true, despite the fact that when most compromises are reached no one gets exactly everything they want. This is a major reason why a lot of legislation, once passed, seems like something less than the optimum result. Indeed, sometimes the result of compromise is something that looks rather like an ugly duckling. However, the government and society are allowed to continue functioning and somewhere someway, everybody very probably got at least a part of what they wanted or needed.
Thus, to the extent that voters elect representatives who take positions etched in stone and who refuse to compromise, which is what political extremists and ideologues typically do, then the more likely it is that government will reach stalemate and cease to function. Depending on how long this goes on, this can potentially cause a whole host of very serious problems including the loss of important governmental services, the unemployment of governmental employees, retirees may not get their social security checks, the financial markets could be disrupted and interest rates may significantly rise which would make it even more difficult to balance the budget in the future. If the shutdown went on long enough violence could erupt and blood shed. The legitimacy and very existence of democracy and our form of government would be called into question. And if blood is shed, it is quite possible that everyone’s children, grandchildren and future generations will be condemned to suffer internecine turmoil and strife. Moreover, one only need look at the Russia and China to see that if a dictator were to take over it is virtually impossible to ever regain a democracy. And, in an age with drones, robotics, artificial intelligence and ubiquitous cameras it is reasonable to doubt that democracy would ever again see the light of day. In short, the very existence of democracy depends on having politicians willing to work with and negotiate with one another, including members of the opposing party, to resolve society’s difficult problems. This, in turn, means that in the final analysis fear mongering, doctrinaire ideologues, demagogues and extremists are bad for democracy. Democracy needs moderates to survive.
In closing two final points should be made. The foregoing is not designed to be a “how to survive” guide for candidates and office holders. Indeed, there are times when engaging in the correct rational decision-making processes can cost an office holder his job at the next election. In a large sense doing what’s right often requires that one being willing to sacrifice his or her political career for the common good. [vii]
The foregoing is offered only as an opinion as to what voters should look for in a candidate when they decide to vote and that candidate is a RPP as has been defined in this article. To the extent anything said herein be taken as being unrealistic and/or idealistic, then it is submitted that the problem is not with what’s being suggested. Rather it is in the way people vote, the way our parties are organized, who our parties recruit as candidates and, indeed, in the election laws and those parts of our Constitution pertaining to the terms and conditions of holding office. Much needs to be changed in order to create greater incentives for our elected officials to act in a more rational problem-solving manner than they currently do.
March 18, 2024
David Dixon Lentz
© Copyright 2024; David Dixon Lentz; All Rights Reserved.
[i] which would be roughly based on something akin to the Scientific Method — meaning, that as a first step, the problem or issue has been correctly defined in an unbiased manner. Too often the issue or the problem is defined in such a way so as to pre-determine or slant the results of the analysis—usually to serve some political agenda. After the issue or problem was correctly defined, that is, the question properly asked, the decision-makers are to look at the cold hard facts, try as hard as humanly possible to remove human emotion (which is often infected by some kind of bias), try to assess all the possible outcomes, then weigh the pros, the cons, the costs and the benefits, and the probabilities of each outcome actually occurring then, if possible, test the results, and then re-test to make sure we ran a fair objective test and thus re-verify the results. And then make an unbiased decision. And, if no testing is possible then to try as best as the decision-maker can, with the information that is practicably obtainable to–in good faith–in the most unbiased manner possible– weigh the pros and the cons, the foreseeable costs and benefits and come to some kind of good faith objective conclusion as to what should or should not be done. In this manner, decision-makers are most likely to make a solid and correct decision. And even if they are ultimately proven to be wrong, at least their decision-making was as good as it reasonably could have been under the circumstances. In other words, humans do make mistakes from time to time, but they are most likely to be correct if you use the scientific method.
We live in a democracy where all elected officials swear an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. As such, no one who wishes to violate or subvert the Constitution is to be considered a Rational Candidate, or a Rational Officeholder. Similarly candidates or politicians who engage in seditious, insurrectionist or treasonous activities are never to be considered Rational Candidates or Rational Officeholders. Publicly advocating for an amendment to the Constitution by lawful means however is permissible and rational act.
[ii] This article is not guide as to how to survive and succeed as a politician or as an office holder. In fact, in many instances doing the right thing will cause a politician to lose at the next election. Doing the right thing and acting as a Rational Politician as defined in this article may even make it impossible to obtain the nomination of a political party and it may also make it more difficult to raise money for one’s campaign. However, those facts alone tell us something about the political climate in this country. But who created the current situation? We did. The fact is that voters themselves bear primary responsibility for the defects in today’s political world.
The point is that if we want better quality candidates and if we want better political outcomes we have to start making more mature and better choices in the people we both nominate and elect to public office.
In order to nominate and elect more better candidates issues relating to public official compensation, retirement benefits and term limits need to be re-examined. Holding public office should be seen primarily as a selfless short term public service, not a monetary bonanza or a license to hold and exercise untold power for life.
Most difficult of all would be the challenge of getting voters to avoid thinking in terms of “us” versus “them”—meaning one race, religion and/or socio economic group against another. This is because the “us” versus “them” way of thinking causes much of the ultimately destructive power based politics that we have today, instead of the more rational approach mentioned herein. Power politics is both dangerous and less effective at solving problems than the “problem solving” approach mentioned herein. Power politics is dangerous because in the final analysis there are no rules, which can ultimately lead to intimidation, deception and even bloodshed. It’s not effective because solutions are not factually based. All solutions are based on keeping and retaining power in a power based political system.
[iii] In this article what we mean by Intellectual honesty is a politician who is honest with themselves, honest with the voters, doesn’t say one thing and then do another, doesn’t say things just to get elected and doesn’t engage in conduct that calls into question his or her credibility and/or ability to tell the truth and is relatively consistent in applying rules, standards and in taking policy positions and does not show favoritism or selectively enforce rules or policy standards. This Is not to say that one cannot change one’s mind if that politician does so in good faith after determining that a prior position was not correct.
The rule of law will quickly evaporate if we elect politicians who have engaged in significant criminal activity themselves.
[iv] There will, of course, be situations where candidates and officeholders might act In the best interests of society as a whole and yet still personally benefit. This is a complex subject. Sometimes doing so would be legal (and thus still Rational), and other times illegal (and thus irrational) depending on the circumstances and the applicable conflicts of interest laws in effect. After all, any time an office holder votes in a manner that is supported by most of the voters is also acting in his own self interest because it helps to assure re-election. However, generally speaking, we will assume that a candidate and/or an office holder who acts primarily to advance the interests of the general public and not his own or that of his party (even though they are somehow personally advantaged) is acting rationally provided that what they are not acting illegally in the process. In this regard it must be remembered that under certain conflict of interest laws a politician or officeholder may be prohibited from ever engaging in some types of decision-making and other activities.
[v] Admittedly there are times when a RPP acting as a Rational Politician may, in good faith and for just cause, dig in and refuse to negotiate. This might be the case if, for example, some fundamental Constitutional principal was at stake. However, the times when failing to negotiate in good faith is justified are exceedingly rare and it is highly improbable that it is ever justified if the failure to negotiate will force a governmental shutdown. Forcing a governmental shutdown in a democracy is tantamount to a doctor killing a patient to cure him of his disease.
[vi] We will not address in depth the issue here of whether budgetary deficits are always good or bad other than to say that they are not always bad. It’s more a question of the cumulative size of the entire federal debt versus the size of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) that is more of a concern. People and entities with a lot of income can generally afford to handle more debt than persons and entities with smaller incomes. The same is true for government. Moreover, the government has the power to print money. People and companies don’t. This all gets into the issue of the inflationary effects of high levels of government debt, the level of interest rates and unemployment all of which are beyond the scope of this article.
[vii] This is another reason why term limits are probably a good idea. Politicians who know that they cannot financially depend on remaining in office indefinitely and/or who know that they cannot substantially enrich themselves by remaining in office would be far more willing to do the right thing for the sake of the common good than those whose career and financial well-being depend on remaining in office.
ADDITIONAL NOTES
Digging In: When should a politician dig in an refuse to bargain and negotiate? This of course is a question that requires its own article. However, it is instructive to consider a couple of questions. One might be: Is there any political, economic or social philosophy that is perfect in all respects? Wouldn’t any system devised by man be imperfect at least in some respects? If the world and society are infinitely complex does it not make some sense to take the fact that no one can be totally certain about the final outcome of any decision and/or the nature and extent of unintended consequences when one makes a decision or determines how to vote. In short can we be sure enough in ourselves and our positions that the possibility exists that we could be wrong?
In other words, no philosophy is perfect. Nothing designed or made by man is. As such, only very rarely should anyone refuse to negotiate when it comes to matters that affect not only themselves but others as well. As such, taking a position of refusing to negotiate and stubbornly insisting on a position regardless of the circumstances is usually a hallmark of unhealthy and undesirable political extremism.