> politicians want to stay in power first, and only secondarily want to improve things.
The politicians who want to be in power first, and only secondarily want to improve things, tend to be the politicians in power.
Politicians who want to improve things first do exist, but they tend not to achieve power, because power is not their goal, and they are out-maneuvered by the first type.
Notably, politicians who want to improve things are easily side-tracked by suggesting that their proposed policy is not the best way to improve things, and that some other way would be better. This explains to some degree a lot of infighting on the left, because many do want to genuinely help, but it's never 100% clear what the best way to help is. It also explains why the right can put aside major differences of opinion (2A is important to fight the government who can't be trusted, but support the troops and arm the police!) to achieve power, because acquiring and maintaining power is more important than exactly what you plan to do with it.
>2A is important to fight the government who can't be trusted, but support the troops and arm the police!
I fail to see the contradiction here. 2A proponents would say that 2A is there for when the government goes wrong, or "when in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another." At all other times, however, it would be up to the government to enforce the law and protect the people. Destroying the state is a different ideology.
(To be clear, the last few wars may not have been about protecting the people. But that the US has not been attacked since Pearl Harbor may be a result of the investment made in "defence" since then, as well as favourable borders ect.)
In any case 'both sides' have people who people who actualy care about society. And there are people on the left who may simply want power, and complex people who seem to be a bit of both (for example perhaps Lyndon Johnson depending on how you see him).
The politicians who want to be in power first, and only secondarily want to improve things, tend to be the politicians in power.
Politicians who want to improve things first do exist, but they tend not to achieve power, because power is not their goal, and they are out-maneuvered by the first type.
Notably, politicians who want to improve things are easily side-tracked by suggesting that their proposed policy is not the best way to improve things, and that some other way would be better. This explains to some degree a lot of infighting on the left, because many do want to genuinely help, but it's never 100% clear what the best way to help is. It also explains why the right can put aside major differences of opinion (2A is important to fight the government who can't be trusted, but support the troops and arm the police!) to achieve power, because acquiring and maintaining power is more important than exactly what you plan to do with it.