The temptation of course is to elect a ‘strong good man’ (or woman, but historically it’s men) to untangle it. They’ll of course need lots of power to do it.

Also, they’ll of course have lots of detractors (whiners all of them!) when they start to untangle things and step on toes, so the temptation is of course to shut them up or get them out of the way.

And voila, fascism and/or outright dictatorship.

Or, you know, we could research what our elected representatives actually do and accomplish instead of what they say they do and accomplish, and vote for those who effectively and reliably do what is in our best interests.

That is, unfortunately, much harder.

Benevolent dictatorships do seem by far the best system of government. Until his kid takes over and turns out to not be quite so benevolent, at least.

Or they get corrupt/powermad.

Or you happen to be in a group singled out as ‘the bad guys’ when people start getting tired of the dictator or their methods, etc.

It’s extremely rare to have a true Cincinnatus, but pretty common to have someone who says they are. Until they get in the seat, anyway.

It’s very simple.

does a politician push for smaller and more restrictions on government.

Or do they push for bigger government.

> those who effectively and reliably do what is in our best interests.

That there is the "and then come the Martians" part.

You bet. But when you think about it, that’s exactly what we’re expecting of the dictator too. But we remove any potential checks and balances by giving them unlimited power.

It’s the ‘this relationship ship will get fixed by having kids’ of politics.