Elected officials serving "in good faith"? [View all]

[MyshkinCommaPrince]

One of the things that bothers me most about the modern Republican party, the "Tea Party" faction (not an actual party!), and the RW Libertarian movement, is that they seem to want to enter government in order to demolish government itself, or to protest the very idea of government. This strikes me as not entering the role of public servant in good faith. They are not seeking to serve the public, but to protest against the very idea of public service.

I don't know how valid this impression of mine may be, so I thought I would ask questions about the thought. Is there any history to this sort of thing in our own government, or in other democracies? Is it considered a truly legitimate approach to governing? I have tended to avoid labeling those who are acting this way as "terrorists" or such, but they are at least subversives. Have they found an exploitable weakness in the idea of democracy, which they now use with full legitimacy? Or can this approach be justifiably criticized?

In addition to any possible history of such subversion in government, what kind of precedent is being set? How might this sort of thing affect representative democracies in the future? Is there any way to rein it in? Should there be any effort to try to prevent this approach in the future, some kind of "good faith" test to be applied to elected officials? Could our side do something like this in the future? Have we, in the past?

With power should come responsibility, or so our culture (at least part of it) would seem to believe. The tactics of the powerless may be less defensible when used by the powerful. My thoughts... are losing steam. I am curious about what thoughts others might have. This is only the second time I've begun a discussion, so... please be kind to me.