Well, OK, I was talking about Cristina's humble origins, but Nestor's was not too much different, I think. His father was a postal official and Nestor (the future president, not his father, who had the same name) went to public schools (at least, he wasn't sent to expensive private schools). Of course, I always thought Cristina wouldn't have made it as far without Nestor as well.
I guess my point is that I don't think being a common person, who understands (or at least comes from) common issues is any better than a rich person as a politician, be he or she from a family of politicians or a rich person who came from humble origins, or any derivative thereof. But then again, I see all of government as a fallacy sitting on top of the people who still don't understand that they are the true will and power of a society and they are letting politicians sway and persuade them into things they wouldn't normally do to their own neighbors.
Like take money by force from families in the neighborhood, to go feed the guy on a nearby street corner who doesn't have a home or a job to make money to buy food. I'd rather see neighbors get together to help that person out if they can - it is they who understand that man's plight, and possibly how to resolve it, better than anyone even at the same economic level in another political unity (if for no other reason than that the people locally know the guy in question better than anyone else), but that all gets thrown out the window when you start talking about the common guy politician who convinces everyone it's OK if the money flows through his hands to help out the "neighbor" 500 miles away.
I know many rich people who are good folk. I know many poor people who are good folk, and people of all economic ranges in between as well. My uncle managed to do quite a good job of accumulating a large amount of money in his lifetime and is now enjoying it in retirement (I'm not talking about enough to be comfortable - he's filthy rich and earned every cent of it the right way). He'd make a really honest politician, and would get absolutely nowhere with the ideals he has in abundance, because he would have to "work the system" to get anything done and the real powers-that-be would not allow such changes anyway.
That's the nature of government and politics. Unless it benefits enough people, usually to the detriment of others, and usually the inclusion in some manner those who are already in power, politicians simply can't be honest and make grand changes, for the most part. I'd rather have someone that understands business in power, at least, than someone who has an axe to grind with people who don't understand how everyday people live, as long as he or she isn't a tyrant - people make their own opportunities and when opportunities are plentiful, possibilities are as well. When you have an ideologue in power, anything goes and I don't feel very often that the results are good in the long run.
I understand what you're saying, and I think I even believed similarly once. Maybe I've grown cynical in my middle age, while people accuse me of being innocent (
), but I'd rather have someone who understands business than someone who is an ideologue in power, particularly if given that either of two candidates may be just as corrupt as the other in their own way.
