Inconsistent Politicians

My concern over most of what I see in politics (Republican and Democrat) is that there is very little consistent philosophy to govern how decisions are made. Certainly I've heard what conservatives and liberals are supposed to stand for but I find most often that their voting record and their actions do not back up the position they would "claim" to take.

It could be that their "incentives" matter. I come from an economics background where there was mutual agreement that "incentives matter" when it comes to economics. For example, if you want to produce more "clean fuels" than you need to give people the incentive to go after it. A financial subsidy or a grant to people exploring these options does this. If you want to detour a particular crime, create an extremely tough punishment for it and enforce it. That crime may not go away but it will go down because you've created "incentives" for potential wrong-doers.

I hope I'm not the only one who realizes that politicians are sinful people just like we are and they are motivated by incentives. And their profit incentive or leisure incentive is best achieved if they can maximize their votes... or at least get 51%. Ahh... and for me, this explains their inconsistent philosophies and actions. Politicians do not have the strongest incentive to do what is best for the government or for the people or for the country (they do have some incentive... it is just not their driving force)... but they do have a big incentive to do what gets them re-elected. In fact, this is arguably their biggest incentive.

So why isn't this a good thing? This is democracy right? Allowing the people to elect their candidate is a purer motivation than just profit? Well... not if you see how this incentive plays out in just about every politician in every election everywhere.... Here's my soapbox...

I've heard an analogy that I think sums up politicians and why they do things that are not right.... lets say you live in a very tiny town of 1,000 people. The Mayor wants to get re-elected but he's running against someone who is very sharp, very smart, and is going to really generate great income and great things for their community. So in order to win, he's got to find a way to get 51% of the votes. In this case, he decides to run on a platform to raise taxes by 20% on the richest 250 people in his town and redistribute the money to the other 750. Is it bad for his economy? Of course since it will run off business owners and employers who have a "profit" incentive. Is it ethical? Of course not. Will the wealthy 250 hate him. Absolutely. And will he win the election? You bet.

This presidential race is going to be a lot of that. Again... from both sides. It doesn't have to be rich and poor. Sometimes, there are ways to benefit the rich people that get a person elected through policies that are not good for the government. Mostly we see this when special interest groups get special things from the candidate they've endorsed. And many times, its not the big issues but the small issues that can sneak in and when added up, become the most harmful. For example, a special tax levied on a small group of people such as the cigarette industry. Sure, the politician may lose the votes of some of the smokers, but since they will gain more votes than they lose, who cares if it is ethical or beneficial. Again, the incentive is for the politician to adopt the policies that eventually get them elected.

My question is whether this is wrong either way? What do you think?