On Mar 18, 9:21*pm, "HeyBub" wrote:
Kurt Ullman wrote:

* *My theory (seriously) is that the demise of the patronage system at
the local level. At the time you had people active in the party for
their own enlightened self interest (a job). They tended to be less
ideological and more pragmatic since their very jobs depended on the
party staying in power. They also provided workers, etc. *They also
worked at a leavening influence by disipating much of the power of the
ideologues. Now, the more fanatical people have a much more important
influence, especially at the party nominating level, and thus at all
levels.

It goes a bit beyond profit. A strong local party has a vested interest in
promoting the best candidates - or at least discouraging marginal ones. A
poor candidate (i.e., caught with an under-age girl or any boy) will drag
down the rest of the ticket.

People engage in politics for one of three reasons: Pride, Power, or Profit.

Most of the Tea Party types and all of the progressives are in the game out
of pride and concern for society.

Profit is not all bad: There are people who print bumper stickers and yard
signs, produce TV spots, rent office space, install telephones, design
web-sites, and so on, that make a reasonable profit from political
campaigns.

And power? If your city councilman knows you by name because you worked in
his campaign or donated money and you also have a pot-hole in front of your
house, you have the power to get the pothole repaired.

Probably true in America.
You don't know about the ones that are trying to improve things for
everyone.
What a nasty place you live in.
What a nasty mindset.
Profit is bad if has not been worked creatively for.