We all know about political figures returned to office in election after election, winning largely for bad reasons and in spite of bad performances, by any standard. Indeed, this characterization is disturbingly applicable to not a few consistent winners in times gone by. Nor is it mysterious. The ultimate enforcers of quality standards in politics are the voting masses, counted in the millions. Whatever their personal qualities and capabilities in other contexts, they seldom rise much above a low-level passing score in performing this function.
Many people do.
They assume, of course, that there is no more to the game than the drive of ambition and a talent for the exercise of plausible misrepresentation. Both disfigure many a political career. Seemingly, both are indispensable elements inherent in the fortuitously chaotic challenge of governing, perhaps the least successful of all human endeavors. But it does not follow from this that the results can be only bad. In fact most are acceptable, and some are surprisingly good.