Nipping problems in the bud regarding political candidates appointed by the electorate can go a long way to fixing a dysfunctional democracy government.

If there are 3 types of candidates for political public service in existence today, here they are, IMO.

Generally:

1. College educated, including political science, law, and a history in previous public service.

2. (newer trend) Public personalities whose narratives have been created by publicity agencies and consultants in the media industries.

3. Relatives running for office, because they are simply relatives. (Think Bush & Adams)

————————————

IMO. The electorate should pay attention to individuals in the #1 group, or people who have ended up classically in higher offices.

Avoid #2 group. Their narratives have been created by publicity agents as consultants. They are basically show people acting like public servants.

Avoid #3 group. Coat tails are not an important qualification for public service.

————————————

I’m thinking the GOP used candidates Reagan & Trump as known public personas (#2), media stars, to get a jump on the GOP’s main voter base. Seriously, they are actors playing parts and in no way dedicated public servants. IMO. Avoid voting for this type of candidate. (Also, R. Reagan, twice former California Governor & twice president of the screen actors guild)

Bush Jr. (#3). I think the GOP used centrist Bush Sr.’s coat tails backed financially by the Texas fossil fuel and mining industries to insert Jr. into office. IMO, bad idea and an openly a corruptible practice.

—————————————

When the electorate learns to focus on candidates whose profession is directly related to public service, then, IMO that will go a long way in fixing the do nothing corruption image of politicians in the USA. That is, who are they really working for?