I wonder, are they?

The irony of crime fighting above is interesting. Crime is a part of human nature that must be combated on its own terms. You cannot, at the point of attack, confront crime with charity. Or hope. Or love. Police must be duplicitous at times. They must be ruthless. They must be brutal or they will be beaten.

Let's presuppose for a moment that politics is not like crime. Let's act like those in charge, those in power, are actually working in our favor. Let's say that the powerful do not need to wield power in order to gain power.

How then could one attain power? Through virtue? Confucius believed only those who possess virtue should wield power. But to have virtue, a person would then not want power over others. Virtue denounces power; and power extols virtue.

Machiavelli put forth a doctrine for obtaining and keeping power, The Prince, and it was completely devoid of virtue; it is an amoral treatise on being - and staying - the top dog. It allows for use of force, even brutality, to "protect" the state. In a Machiavellian sense, the ends justify the means. This is SNAFU: strike to keep from being stricken, beat to keep from being beaten, kill to keep from being killed.

I would not. To succumb to that proposition would not end a problem, it would only complicate a problem. But many believe it is the strong who are able to wield power only when necessary, but could it be the strong who can lead without wielding power at all.

In politics, you must have power to protect people. And you must wield power in order to stay in power. Virtues like generosity, according to Machiavelli, are detrimental to the powerful; they guarantee loss of power. Giving away money, you are left weak. Emanate love and you will be defeated.

Maybe times have changed since The Prince was published, but not that much. Charity is a tax write-off. Compassion is a photo-op.

Money is power. It's not complete power (other things are necessary to gain complete power), but it is a necessary component to getting in a position of power. And, as if power were not enough - as if those in power thought that they needed to be repaid for spending money to get elected - positions of power bring new money.

Circles of powerful people profit from war. They profit from fuel crises. They profit from the complete obliteration of our environment. This is a Machiavellian power-keeping maneuver; money = power = more money = more power.

It doesn't end until someone ends it. This is the tricky part: someone must prove that virtue can beget power, and that having power does not rid oneself of virtue. How can this happen? I don't know.

Crime is a zero-sum game. There are winners and losers. Additionally, death could be a loss or a gain. Crime is like politics, but this point is where they differ.

Politics doesn't have to be a zero-sum game. Everyone can win. A win for one person doesn't have to be a loss for someone else.

Is Obama the man to prove this? I don't know. Is his lack of "experience" in politics a shortcoming? I say, "No." I say he is the bright-eyed, idealist of a crime fighter, the one who can get off the beat before he has to compromise his integrity. He doesn't have to play the game the way it's been played.

Why? Because unlike criminals, the political playing-field can be virtuous - if we want it to be. Charity can be an asset, not a detriment. Hope can be a conduit of power. And love can be a ruling principle. It's up to us.

We can learn from the Corleones.