WEALTH+DESIRE FOR CONTROL=POWER

In a democracy, those who have greater wealth are able to achieve more or less what they desire. If they wish to become a president or prime minister, they can afford to hire the best people to promote their cause. If they have committed any civil or criminal acts, they can usually pay off those who have suffered or been inconvenienced. They have the best lawyers. In the USA, you would think that such a large and powerful country would have the talent available to provide the best leadership. The talent is no doubt there, but without the wealth, achievement to a high status is difficult or impossible.
The best USA can offer is Donald Trump and Joe Biden. The former will no doubt become president again. The alternative choice is someone who appears to have difficulty with his faculties. Forgetful, sometimes looks in a trans like state, unsteady on his feet.
Should the electoral system change and end the wealthy only candidates? Replace with a public funded arrangement with the best qualified individuals chosen?
In an autocracy, if you have wealth and desire power, and if you finance the right people, eg. Police, military, and gather round you a group who like the idea of power themselves, and the freedom to use it, even if it means the use of intimidation and violence to assist them. Elections are never needed or are rigged to achieve the desired result. Examples of this can be found in China, North Korea, Russia and Iran.
Difficult to ever change this form of power, unless the people revolt and risk their lives in the process.
Democracy takes bravery.

Comments DisabledThe author has disabled comments for this blog.

Comments (8)

OP,you might want to study the Electoral College-System a bit more thorough before dismissing it!
It has nothing to do with a Candidate's wealth!



There ought to be a dyslexia pride march every 29th February from here on in.
Conrad
Let me know of any president that achieved his position without wealth.
dunno
In American history... how far back do you want to go?
Chatillon
As far back as George Washington will do. He of course was a free mason and part of an exclusive gang who were not short of cash.
My first thought would be Abraham Lincoln. Born into poverty, self-educated, had a rough life, a few failed businesses, battled depression, persisted until he achieved success.
I didn't study him in depth, but I don't recall him achieving great wealth.
Chatillion
Yes. Lincoln was not a wealthy man. But difficult to find many who weren't. The growth in population meant more wealthy people and greater opportunity for them to rise to the top.
Is the current presidential situation in USA down to two wealthy people and no one else offering real competition, or is it down to a lack of desire by anyone else to perform presidential duties? Is it too much of a challenge and considered a task that has too much responsibility with the power that comes with the job?
Meet the Author of this Blog
Licensedtothrillonline today!

Licensedtothrill

Exeter, Devon, England, UK

Likes healthy lifestyle. Keeping fit. Enjoy cooking most types of food, but preferably vegetarian. Loves outdoor activities and playing badminton. Most sports are enjoyable to watch. Always present myself smartly dressed whether casual or formal. Hav [read more]

About this Blog

created Feb 29
269 Views
Last Viewed: Apr 25
Last Commented: Mar 5
Last Edited: Mar 15
Comments Disabled by Author
Licensedtothrill has 35 other Blogs

Like this Blog?

Do you like this Blog? Why not let the Author know. Click the button to like the Blog. And your like will be added. Likes are anonymous.

Feeling Creative?