> Do we really believe it’s not possible for a politician to be addressing the problem of “improving people’s lives” via the intermediate aim of “gaining politi

> Do we really believe it’s not possible for a politician to be addressing the problem of “improving people’s lives” via the intermediate aim of “gaining political power”? In my limited understanding the writers of the US Constitution held exactly this belief: that the government would be run by imperfect and self-interested actors. They introduced mechanisms like separation of powers to play them off against each other to the benefit of the governed. It seems as we've moved from that focus on outcomes to judging people based on the purity of their motives.