I get what you're saying, and I would agree that the power of _most_ politicians is minimal compared to the absolute richest people in the world (so not just mere single-digit billionaires, unless their wealth is built on owning a platform, like Oprah).
However, read the book Charlie Wilson's War. Wilson had no money to speak of, but the book reveals the incredible power that he wielded, largely by sidling up to selective groups (like the Israeli lobby) and getting key committee appointments. And Wilson wasn't even a U.S. Senator! (Generally speaking Representatives have far less power than Senators)
The challenge isn't that people don't want to engage; it's that the demands of daily life, such as working long hours to make ends meet, leave little room for the kind of sustained political involvement that wealthier individuals can afford. When we say that people delegate their power to figureheads, it might be more a reflection of an unequal system that doesn't effectively support widespread civic participation, rather than a choice made out of apathy.
I'm sure some of them are good people trying to do good things. I'll spare cynical rejoinders and just concede the point. I think many people would agree that there aren't very many of them in the government. There are of course various axioms about people seeking power and the corrupting effects of power.
>The man's been "part of the problem" since the 70s
Yes! The public doesn't have anybody from group A to choose from, and essentially always gets to choose from group B or C. The hope is that we might get lucky one day and get someone for the group you brought up. We want the D.
That's a good point. Perhaps a weaker claim is just the idea that people in power (or more generally, people of influence) are as likely to have skin in the game, which can only drive engagement on the issue. That's different to many issues for which those in a position of power are often less affected directly.
reply