I was reading something about how good and bad leaders are the same. They're both people that take big risks for big results. If their big ideas pan out, they are judged as good. And if they don't they're thought of poorly.
I do think Obama is a good example of that concept. He took a big idea that no one's been able to pass in universal health care. But he screwed it up a bit due to his lack of management experience.
As a result, people prefer to choose the safe route instead. Pick the safe guy. And we end up with less risk and less reward, but also less downside.
At the end of the day, it's the collective psyche that's to blame. Because collectively we're risk averse. So the guy off the deep end like a Ron Paul never stands a chance to overcome the psyche because he's too risky.
It's almost like we need candidates to lie to us and do the opposite. You can't make decisions by committee. If we did everything collectively, innovation would cease to exist.
But there's no opportunity to take big chances in gov't. It's not even who we pick as much as we prevent them from doing what they want to do. That and the parties/alliances hold everything back and will prevent any big idea from coming to be.