Read the original article at 112.ua
Deceased Mykhailo Chechetov during the presidency of Yanukovych under the order of his Party of Regions permanently protected their "esprit de corps" on all kinds of talk shows and in especially at Shuster talk show. Every Friday he obediently came to Shuster’s show and in the midst of controversy has always stood up and, turning to the audience, with lisping tongue patheticly uttered the same phrase: "The difference lies in the fact that Viktor Yanukovych, unlike our opponents, he is not a politician – he is a statesman. Politician, as you know, just thinks about the next election, but statesman thinks only of the future generation."
Every time of pronouncing this phrase Savik Shuster stood still, listened attentively, and his glasses fogged. However, this phrase provoked political opponents of Mykhailo Chechetov to violent protests, and they, in turn, aggressively proved that their leaders just do nothing but worry about the future generation, like no one else. And, of course, they are absolutely not interested in future elections. If only the future generations would live well! And Viktor Yanukovych – he cares only of money in his pocket.
The spectacular division of public figures to the selfish politicians and altruistic statesmen, which was offered by American economist John Clark, now has many fans in a democratic society. And since then people are in a constant search for exactly statesmen, and it is necessary for them to give their votes in the elections for such candidates.
John Clark was a good economist, but, unfortunately, naive romantic in politics. Statesmen, who don’t care about their own power and material gain, but only for the public good, do not exist. This is a beautiful myth.
But it is difficult for people to accept the idea that all politicians are the usual selfish people in nature - and like everyone else, will use their power solely for profit. Therefore, people cherish the hope that nevertheless there must be disinterested politicians; it is simply not possible yet to find them and bring to power. They just have to be more attentive during the search.
Having experienced another disappointment with another scoundrel, people wipe their tears and begin to search for another statesman. And also most people endow historical characters by mythical qualities of selfless heroes to have a perfect model before the eyes and to justify their expectations in the future.
Every nation has its own mythological heroes who embody the images of perfect, selfless statesmen. Peoples carefully guard their myths and do not allow anyone to "humanize" the usual egoistic nature of their idols. This affects everyone, even the highly developed in cultural terms nations. For example, Americans.
It is known that in the pantheon of national heroes, founding fathers, disinterested statesmen who have devoted their entire lives without residue to the nation, first place belongs to the bright image of George Washington. In the whole American history you can’t find a man with more solid reputation as an honest statesman, as evidenced by his nickname "Cincinnat", after the Roman dictator who, having gone from public affairs returned to a plow.
Americans experienced a state of near-shock, when in 2001 historian J. Larson told that George Washington during his tenure as the first US president may come under the impeachment because of his greed. Washington has proposed a bill aimed at deepening the Potomac River at the expense of public funds, to make it more navigable. Is it the river, asked the congressmen, which Washington’s estate named "Mount Vernon" was located on?
Given the small budget of those years, the costs of deepening the river were incomparably greater than the expenses spent of Yanukovych’s “Mezhyhiria” from the budget money. Another unpleasant thing for Americans to learn was that being on the words fierce opponent of slavery, Washington has consistently increased the number of his slaves, and has always organized search for escaped blacks.
A famous historian Charles Beard in 1913 published a book "The economic interpretation of the US Constitution," in which proved that all of America's founding fathers were very rich people, and their only motive of the creation of Constitution was to ensure the guarantees of inviolability of their personal property from the encroachments in the post-revolutionary hard times. Beard was criticized and he anathematized among historians, because that times society was not able to abandon its myths.
Democratic societies need to stop looking for the honest and disinterested politicians. They do not exist in nature. Moreover, people need to accept the idea that person who went into politics, by definition is a moral monster that was proved by P. Sorokin, and Friedrich Hayek.
Much more useful and practical would be not to look for altruists, but to establish tight control over politicians and tell them directly that they are all rascals, and that their only desire - is to steal the budget money or take bribes for the solution of problems.