To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”
In regards to those who want to rule others, I
agree with Mr. Adams. Add in truisms about how power corrupts and you have a very
bleak picture of civil society. I want to believe that those who feel called to
public service in the highest offices
of our democracy are cut from a different cloth. But is that true?
Does planning your life around becoming qualified to and capable of winning the popularity contest that is our modern democracy diminish one's worthiness to serve and the nobility of their intentions?
Some of my friends may already know this, but I aspire to serve in public office in the manner of Presidents Roosevelt (Theodore and F.D.R.), Senator John D. Rockefeller (D-WV), and former Representative Dr. Ken Hechler (D-WV). I believe that challenging the politicians that are in office because they want to rule, rather than serve, will benefit the common good. But it is also logical that choosing to pursue politics will substantially change the person who does so, even depriving them of pursing experiences that would have made them even better leaders later in life.
So is it more beneficial to choose our public servants based on their qualifications, whether they seek the task or not? Imagine what it would be like if our Congress was filled with likes of Neil de Grasse Tyson, Malcolm Gladwell, Jane Goodall, your humble parish priest, and tireless middle-school teacher; instead of Joe "Dead Aim" Manchin (D-WV), Joe "Windmills-Might-Warm-the-Earth" Barton (R-TX), and John "Poker Face" McCain (R-AZ).
Or is it still possible for genuine public servant to fight through the muck and mud, without losing themselves, because they believe that Destiny demands of them this service?
Or is it still possible for genuine public servant to fight through the muck and mud, without losing themselves, because they believe that Destiny demands of them this service?
No comments:
Post a Comment