Electing who we don't like

I'm still fuming over the state legislators giving themselves a 5.3 percent raise while bantering on about how deep and severe cuts must take place in order to cover the shortfall in the state budget. Elected officials somehow thought this would be a good idea and would fly without causing a stir. I just don't get it.

Maybe the problem lies in the word "elected". Not that I am suggesting they should be appointed, quite the contrary. Maybe the problem is in the criteria we use to elect them in the first place. "Electability" has become nearly synonomous with "likeability". Do we need to like the officials we elect? Elections should not be a popularity contest. They should be about evaluating the officials who are entrusted to safeguard our future, and preserve our state for generations to come. I think back to my most effective teachers (not necessesarily favorite), and I did not like most of them. In hindsight they got the job done and I have gained respect for them. However, if given the power and choice at the time to have them replaced with a more likeable teacher, I imagine I would have done so. We are doing this now with our elected leaders, and these leaders are acutely aware of it. They are more than aware of it, they base their whole operation around it. Getting re-elected by far outweighs the responsibility of governing.

We need to start electing people who say and do things which are unpopular but right. And when their opponent brings up how that upright person did things that were not immediately gratifying for you, we need to them to shut the hell up and stop being so myopic. We need to have people in charge who should not be afraid of doing the right thing because it may cost them some popularity, and thus their job. As grown adults with reason developed beyond that of a pre-teen pupil, I'd like to think we'd have the sense to do that.