These birds are of same breed.
Unfortunately, the "goodnes" of a new leader has no value and its a myth to think we choose the president. Even my public admin textbook says so:
1.The wants and needs of the people are, by and large, manipulated.
There is no independent, popular will formation. News
media, especially the electronic media from which most of the
population gets its information, are managed more with an eye
to entertain and titillate, to grab attention and sell air time to
advertisers, than to politically inform.
2. Candidates for office rarely compete on the basis of complex
policy alternatives. Image is much more important than substance.
On campaign staffs, public relations gurus, advertising
consultants, and style coaches are more important than
3. People do not vote for candidates on the basis of specific public
policies, rationally considered. Majorities of the people often
do not vote at all. Even if they did, a single-district, winner
take-all, two-party electoral system is an extremely blunt instrument
for registering the people’s specific policy preferences
(Duverger 1954; Page and Brody 1972; and see Prewitt 1970,
on voters’ ineffectiveness in municipal elections). It is highly
unlikely that a particular politician represents a particular constituent
across the entire panoply of complex issues facing the
nation. Single-issue voting further decreases the likelihood that
the daily votes of legislators are inspired by the discipline of the
electoral process. Those with more than one interest might get
what they want on abortion or gun control, but not on capital
gains or farm support. Indeed, it is mathematically impossible
for “the people” to be represented on the entire concatenation
of issues that affect their lives when choice is forced through
the binary centrist narrows of our electoral system.
4. After elections, coalitions of political entrepreneurs are more
likely to be influenced by lobbyists, special interest associations,
and close-knit policy communities; the pressure group
system is bolstered by the politician-entrepreneur’s need for
campaign contributions, speaking honoraria, or well-funded ad
campaigns (Blumenthal 1980). Nor does voting on the basis of
party assure particular policy stances. Coalitions that do momentarily
gel produce incoherent policy because they are contrived
contingently to attract a legislative majority. Ambiguous,
contradictory, and confused mandates will then plague the bureaucracy
as it tries to figure out which politically generated
command to neutrally implement.
5. If eternal vigilance is the price of liberty, only radio talk show
hosts seem willing to pay it. Americans frequently do not know
their representatives’ names, much less their positions and their
policy successes or failures. Vigilance is a thirty-second TV spot
excoriating opponents out of context.
6. It does not seem to matter that people are generally dissatisfied
with the performance of Congress; they will still reelect
their own members. Instead, calls for term limits resonate
across the electorate.
Author: Miller Book: Postmodern Public Administration