We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
One of the benefits of the way our country was originally organized is that politics was relatively unimportant. The sphere of influence of the individual was large and the sphere of influence of the govt. was small. As the govt's sphere of influence grows, politics gets more important because the govt messes in everybody's business.
Supposedly the founders wanted a limited form of representative government that took into consideration that we would not always have good men in charge. Bad men with limited powers and interactions with citizens do less damage. If I am not mistaken, government is no longer limited, so the importance of good people becomes critical.
Whenever I hear a politician proclaim that he can run something better than his opponent (or in the case of Romney, his defense of the poor performance of Romneycare is the people now running it), I think it is a case where that government entity needs to be defunded. Obamacare will depend upon the character of a few people, and Democrats are hoping it will be them into perpetuity. If it actually goes into effect, in the future Republicans will run campaigns based on their ability to run it better.
And as F. Hayek has noted, the bad rise to the top when in a socialist because it takes a weak character to act in public what you don't believe in private.
That quote reminds me of the old liberal chestnut, "the personal is political". At some point I realized that the motto wasn't really descriptive, it was aspirational. The folks saying it wanted to make the personal political; they wanted every facet of your life subject to their politics. And they had big plans.
A year or so ago I was trying to explain to a liberal friend where the Tea Party folks had come from and why they were so upset. It occurred to me that, whatever the budgetary reasons, the root of it was that they felt they had to protest at all. They were, by and large, people who were perfectly content living their lives ignoring politics and interacting with any kind of government as little as possible.
What they saw coming at them was a government they couldn't ignore, that was going to get in their face. Which meant they had to become politically active to push government back, which in and of itself was irksome because they would rather be doing just about anything else: flying kites, you name it. And they would organize and protest on weekends and make a huge, focused fuss just so in the future they didn't have to spend their weekends at some damn political rally.
It ain't the whole picture, but it's a big part, and boy do I sympathize!!