What I dislike most about modern life are bad laws. Bad laws encourage disloyalty among citizens and criminality among police.
Bad legislation thus cuktivates the very “anarchy” that government is supposed to prevent.
And the most witless response to this is to demand loyalty to law . . . without context. As a principle in and of itself.
What must be done is to change the law.
If you folks keep voting for the same goobers over and over, you will merely increase the “anarchy” — de facto lawlessness, disorder — of modern tyranny. Which is to say, you play a part, in every vote for an old-timer incumbent, in the deepening corruption of soctal life.
Further, demanding that new law be enacted after every crisis is foolish on the face of it, perverse at base. Many laws cause more problems than they can possibly solve, and to not admit this is to fly in the face of human experience. If a candidate can think of no law or program he or she would try to repeal, that candidate is at least a fool, probably a dunce, perhaps even a knave.
Also: expect a candidate for office to be capable of subtlety. If there is no evidence of this in a candidate — if everything is claimed to be simple, no complexity admitted — then vote against that candidate.