Instead of merely talking about their dissatisfaction with the corrupt political system, some citizens of a Mexican town called Xalapa (who have even more to complain about than American citizens) have decided to do something about it, nominating a cat named Morris as “candigato” for mayor [1]. Their campaign is simple and straightforward. They promise that their cat will hunt rats, play in the dirt, and sleep, and will by doing so do less harm to the city than the normal corrupt politicans. Instead of voting for “rats,” they urge voters to write-in a cat who will fulfill campaign promises. Now, technically a cat cannot serve as mayor, but any time an animal capable of no government is viewed as superior to those who appear only capable and intersted in misgovernment, there are severe problems with one’s political system.

This is a solution that needs to be more common. Given the rampant corruption on the part of politicians over the world, surely animals can do no worse at government than most leaders. I mean, a goat could hardly be more voracious in appetite than most governments are in taxes, and a cat fascinated by laser pointers and mice can be no less dedicated to the proposition that all animals are created equal (but some are more equal than others) than the average technocrat in contemporary political society. Surely the political platform of a cat that simply wishes to enjoy some meal time and play time is vastly less offensive than socialists and libertarians and other political parties with personally loathsome political platforms. Given the inability of cats to pursue political vendettas or divert public monies for corrupt personal profit, a cat sounds more suitable than more than 90% of the political class.

This ought to be a matter of great concern. All kidding aside, the fact that the political class of the world is corrupt enough that animals can rule better ought to be seen as a sign that our political leadership is morally bankrupt. That would, of course, be about as morally sound as they are economically sound. Nonetheless, we cannot merely heap blame on a political class, as appealing as that is. After all, a political class gains some measure of legitimacy from pouplar support, and whatever particular crooks are in office are seen to be the least worst alternatives, drawn from the population at large that has the ambition and the means to achieve political office. Whose lies are more appealing? Do we prefer populists or plutocrats or technocrats or something else of the same ilk? Do we prefer hypocrisy or open corruption, cold-hearted indifference to the concerns of the people or fake concern? Whatever preference we have, we have politicans for that.

If we do not have a virtuous political class, that is our own fault. In life, in competitive endeavors, we get what we really want. If we really wanted honest politicians, we would reward them at every step of the way, whether they were running for Clackamas County Dog Catcher or city council member of Mollalla or President of the United States, or any other office. If we rewarded honesty, we would get honesty. The same rules that apply in dating or sports apply in politics–what gets the desired results? That behavior will be copied and imitated up and down the line from the highest levels to the lowest. If we want people to be virtuous and honest, we need to reward it. If we reward lies and hypocrisy because we are unwilling to honor truth, we will get lies and hypocrisy, and we will get what we deserve.

[1] http://www.elcandigato.com/