Government and The People In It

I just had a great conversation with one of my friends about the future of China and the United States. Something I find very interesting and have had with many people in the past. In our conversation today, he mentioned something that struck me as quite interesting. How he loves the policy of the government in China, but hates the government itself. This struck me as odd, how could one love and hate essentially the same thing? But what he described as the difference is important. Many of the policies in China are things he believes are necessary for China's future and current stability, while those who carry out these policies at the middle levels are corrupted by the need to achieve and because they need the benefits of their corruption to survive. He pointed to the point that the President of China, Hu, is not corrupt, but those at the middle level in the party can be due to their use of power as party officials, but not their lack of absolute power such as that of the party leader leaves them somewhat limited in ways. This advantage of being a party official can make themselves a cut above the nonofficial population, but still, does not always give them the ability to live a lifestyle appropriate for that position. It is essentially a system that encourages and promotes this incentive to corruption, most likely inadvertently.

Then I thought about our current political climate here in the United States. What makes this interesting to me is how we associate ourselves with politicians here in the United States. When we vote for a candidate here in the U.S. are we voting for the person or what their policy is? Last night in South Carolina, a traditionally conservative and Christian dominated state, Newt Gingrich won the Republican Primary. This is despite the negatives and blemishes of his past years and multiple transgressions of infidelity. Or the recent weeks exposure of his desire for an "open" marriage as described by his former wife. Is this the case that we love the policy of our politicians but disapprove of them as human beings? If that is true, then what are we to call a leader? A policy maker and their personal life aside, or should they be blended together when this spotlight position is taken?  At some point, we need a balance between good policy and strong personal leadership attributes of a politician right? Or have we just come to accept that politicians are all corrupt at some level and what we have left is to just rely on the policy they promote? Does it really make a difference if the man vying for President of the United States have a transitionally considered good character as a husband and how he would lead the United States through an economic recovery? Thomas Jefferson wrote in our constitution "all men are created equal" but even he had slaves within his household. He was considered one of the best politicians of all time, at least in western culture. Is character and the person themselves different from the policy they promote? Has this always been the same way? Good leaders to me are both good policy makers and those who lead people in their nation based on their own personal integrity. It is hypocritical to me to call on others to be better people when you yourself can't follow your own preaches. Maybe thats why we are where we are...