We call it "servant", but in fact still treat them like royalty. We never fully made the transition from royalty to servant. Why do so many governments put their high officials up in special house/palaces? We don't do that for any other jobs. It would be much healthier to treat elections like a shared effort to hire someone to do a job.

Terry Pratchett has a lot of good aphorisms, but one that stuck with me is some etymology from a cop and a Machiavellian dictator:

> "It's all for the good of the city, sir. Do you know where the word 'policeman' comes from? It means 'man of the city', sir. From the old word polis."

> ...

> "You're a man interested in words, captain. I'd just invite you to consider something your predecessor never fully grasped."

> "Sir?"

> "Have you ever wondered where the word 'politician' comes from?" Said the Patrician.

These roles have a very specific purpose, and that purpose is service. They've veered sharply away from it, but that is still their job. Also, I think in real life the root is 'politia' or 'politika' or something, but the definition is similar.

And another word from that book: 'polite' apparently came from 'behavior befitting someone living in a city.' I guess social norms maybe became more important with the density?

This is all from ancient Greek where the city ("polis") was the state.

These terms were thus all created in the first democracy we know of. However, that was then followed by millennia of monarchies. Modern democracies came into existence in an environment where monarchies were still the norm and it shows. I find it reminiscent of the fact that Christians celebrate Christmas which is supposedly a Christian holiday by following all kinds of pagan rituals like the entire Christmas tree thing.

politicians are the one percent, they control the purse strings. the very rich are the only people of means who can pay them to look away.

politicians then use this wealth to divide the rest of the country to insure their continuance in power. they are loyal to their party before the people and it is that stranglehold that needs to be broken to bring accountability back.

I don't know what country you're from but there clearly seems to be two distinct political parties in the US, one that supports consumers and the other that supports corporations. Trying to argue that the DNC and GOP are the same is complete lunacy.

The DNC isn't nearly as innocent as you claim. The ultimate goal is power, the rhetoric and ideas are slightly different but corporations and the rich benefit the most.

disclaimer: I voted straight D in the last 4 elections

If you don't think the Rs and Ds are different sides of the same coin, just look at the nevertrumpers and "deep staters", career appointees who carry on regardless of who's in power.

This uniparty allows fringes of either side some pet causes, but at the heart of it, both parties share the same values.

That's not all that bad either, it guarantees continuity and limited disruption --but we need to understand that's how it works and its consequent limitations.

The only non unipartarians the last 25 years have been Perot, perhaps Sanders and Trump. Prior to that JFK.

> Being in politics is supposed to mean being a public servant.

That's what the powerful tell the naive. Politics is about power and money.