This is not the only deterrent that discourages people of the caliber of Ronald Reagan and the Founders from seeking public office. Most people do not like, and are self-conscious if not embarrassed about asking for money. Multiple term politicians have not only been conditioned, but also trained in techniques of when, and how to ask, as well as how to ask in way designed to increase the amount of the contribution as well as set the stage for the next round of fund-raising. Fund-raising has become a business and in some cases, a profession. It seems logical to me that the better the character of the candidate, the more they would dislike campaign fund-raising. Another thing, people who contribute money for anything, commonly expect to get something in return. Conditioned to promise anything, do politicians ever say "NO"? Polling data indicates that the public does not trust politicians.
As bad as this picture of campaign fund-raising is, the reality facing candidates that have never been elected is even worse. Incumbents use their power over the public purse to buy votes from their constituents. Pork is the tip of the iceberg compared to socialistic programs. Most pork is simply payback for campaign contributions. It is socialism that buys the votes. Is it really a mystery why the incumbent is a twenty to one favorite over the challenger? Once the election is over, fund-raising begins immediately for the next election. For the politician, fund-raising never ends. For a would-be statesman, he is faced with the prospect that most of his time in office will be spent raising money for reelection. People of character are motivated to seek public office to enact a specific agenda. Time spent either thinking about fund-raising or engaging in fund-raising is time that cannot be devoted to enacting the agenda. If your time in office is going to be spent raising money for your own campaign, instead of accomplishing your legislative agenda, and you are going to be demonized for your efforts, why bother?
How many times have you heard conservatives complain that there aren't any statesmen any more? Was Ronald Reagan unique? Why are conservatives completely surprised when republicans like Nixon, Newt, or even Delay disappoint them or fail to live up to conservative expectations? If the system favors the election of fund-raisers, is it reasonable to expect that it is the most successful fund-raisers that are going to be elected and you are going to get everything that goes with them regardless of their party affiliation? "Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I've come to realize there is a very close resemblance to the first," Ronald Reagan.
It logically follows, that if you want to elect statesmen, people like Ronald Reagan and the Founders, that a different method of fund-raising is an absolute prerequisite. As you will see, this is perhaps the pivotal part of our plan for electing statesmen exactly like Ronald Reagan and the Founders who will restore the Constitution.
It logically follows, that if you want to elect statesmen, people like Ronald Reagan and the Founders, that a different method of fund-raising is an absolute prerequisite.
Yeah, seems like term limits aren't necessarily the answer, AND would be a mixed blessing in any case. The unintended consequences could be interesting too. Husband/wife tag teams, etc. "Front" men for the "real" candidate would probably be the order of the day. So, I'll wait to see what the plan is and in the meantime, will hope and pray for a workable solution.
FGS