Well it's not much and it's not good

Someone who is good comes from a good family too. Given that prospective leaders come from the people, by themselves, those who advance to become future leaders will be more than good people than vice versa.

[source picture]

And what you don't imagine is like hoping good people win, if the people are "not good" who dominate. Because both voters and candidates are equally inhabited by individuals who are not good and do not apply the standard of goodness. Therefore, improving the people first feels more logical than finding a good leader.

Dapslat concluded that behind all that, we are still required to try, pray and not stop hoping for the sake of the election of good people, remain optimistic and realistic.

BETWEEN CHIEF AND ETHICS

Furthermore, the worst education I have ever heard is the phrase "Politics is Cruel". The reason is, there are 2 groups of people in politics, namely the beginner and old players.

When the old players disseminate the phrase "Politics is Cruel", it becomes non-educative consumption for prospective beginners, as if there is no right politics that can be done, meaning that if we do not hurt, it will definitely be hurt. If we do not nudge, we will definitely be nudged, do not elbow first, surely elbowed.

[source picture]

If beginners have been treated to material like this, rest assured that before that happens the beginner will prepare special shoes for "playing kick", there is no good intention because it has been poisoned with the ideology "the good will be harmed".

In fact, given that politics is only in the form of media and the perpetrators remain human, then politics is also inseparable from the moral that we often find in the term "Political Ethics". It is inversely proportional to the facts on the ground, when humans are too moral and ethical in politics, and they are hurt, the goal fails to be fulfilled, then the conclusion that is pinned to them is "Politics is cruel, and if it is unable to be cruel don't play with politics".

I was surprised, too, why there was also "Political Ethics" if indeed the ethical was deemed incompetent, unable to prosper, and no goals achieved. So, in this position, the ethical will look wrong and stupid because they do not want to hurt others, while the "equality" will appear as a political hero.

Which politics is right? Political as well as moral (but tend to be a victim) or politically all do good (justify any means for the sake of winning).

Temporary conclusions, the phrase "Politics is Cruel" is the forerunner of the growth of politicians who abandon their morals. In fact, in political science there is also the term "Political Ethics". But the longer the more ethical the victim becomes a victim, so that even the ethical are forced to buy weapons to abuse before being wronged.

As we know that ethics is a measure of human morality, whereas if we measure success in "interests", most of us will not consider morality anymore, because those who are moral (ethical) tend to be victims. As a result, political actors will conclude "morality produces nothing, and without morality produces everything".