Customer Service from the State?

My wife was recently listening to the audio version of The Five Languages of Apology.

The authors were comparing two examples of customer service wherein the level of professionalism, treatment of the customer, and apologetic behavior for poor service made a big difference for the customer. The two institutions noted were the United States Postal Service and a bank. Correctly, my wife realized that the reason the bank employee treated the customer better is that the bank's ability to make money and stay in business depends on satisfying its customers!

To add to her thoughts:

The United States Postal Service, however, has the built-in advantage of having allies that will steal from you, imprison you, or kill you if refuse to pay to keep them in business!

That's right, working for the state means never having to say "I'm sorry."

Electoral Politics

I have been ruminating much lately regarding the topic of voting. For one, I have been trying to decide whether or not I should vote, even in primaries and the like. Many Anabaptists have historically refused to hold public office or vote, based on the Two Kingdoms theology represented in articles IV and VI of the Schleitheim Confession, though my experience indicates that perhaps such a stance is on the decline. Many libertarians and anarchists have also argued that voting is immoral, such as several Strike the Root columnists and Wendy McElroy.

One specific I have been pondering is the minimal-to-nonexistent intersection between the qualifications required to be elected and the qualifications required in order to perform effectively once in office. The only immediate commonality that comes to mind is the special ability to repeatedly convince people of something that is obviously untrue. That, of course, is not even an admirable skill, even though it may be a remarkable one.

With the current U.S. presidential election underway, I have been reminded of something that I started to recognize during previous elections: through all the media I have heard or seen, I have yet to witness someone voice their support for an "electable" candidate and back it up by agreeing with specific policy or platform items espoused by the candidate. In the very best cases that I have observed, a supporter will reference such vague things as "change," "helping working people," "better economy," or "better healthcare," and the like.

Combine this with the fact that the winner of the last U.S. election only took roughly 20% of the citizenship's vote, and I cannot help but wonder how many people actually agree with a candidate's stated platforms (not even considering the disparities between stated platform and actual intent). Could it be less than 1%?

And yet, out of these tiny percentages of the population that support the actual programs that politicians advocated, they often envision a "mandate from the masses," or sometimes, "a mandate from God."

It boggles the mind.