can't trust a politician or candidate. They do whatever it takes to get into office and then, they do whatever they want to. Meanwhile, upholding an ideal image of leadership and admirability, only to pacify the public eye. Deceitful-to put it in a nice way. Democracy, in the true definition of the word?-Hardly.The third charge claims that money from interest-groups has weakened and corrupted parties. Some charge that politicians have become political entrepreneurs seeking their own personal fortunes instead of being members of party teams concerned with the good of the party and its supporters. Because politicians have their own funding, they are very independant of their parties. Thus, the interest-system has weakened party loyalty. The book suggests that the greatest effect of these pressures may be in cluttering up the national political agenda with so many small issues which makes it difficult for government to focus on broader govering programs. This suggestion sounds like it was written by a politician who needed an excuse at re-election time as to why he didn't implement solutions to the bigger problems.The fourth charge is that the nature of political leadership has been changed by party breakdown (loyalty and discipline) which has also weakened our government. The critics explain that this dilemma is a result of the skills that work in politics today, those skills of entreprenuership. People are self-nominated. They don't win from support, but rather self-motivation to set out and find the votes. The problem with this outside-the-party-politics is that once elected, successful entreprenuers might be left with an insufficient party power base to govern adequately and follow through on promises.My conclusion on these charges is that there is insufficient evidence to support or disclaim the allegations. Hence, my conclusion is that the problems in our government or the way in which it operates is a product of ma...
