The passion with which some folks embrace our political candidates has always been a bit beyond me. The idea of adoring someone who wants me to put him in a position where he can tell me what to do is a bit unnerving.

Politics is understandably addictive, but one never knows how much of it to believe. What politicians say about themselves and each other is often so vague or contradictory that somebody has to be lying or at least distorting the truth.

Don’t rely on the media for enlightenment, either. What you hear about politics, politicians or any other subject depends upon which network’s news shows you listen to, which newspaper you read, or if you follow O’Reilly, Beck or Olbermann.

All three surviving presidential candidates have inspirational messages (which is one reason they got this far), and I want to trust them. But I am suspicious of people who have what’s called vision. We say, “So-and-so has vision” or “So-and-so is a visionary.” Sounds wonderful, but watch out. The more splendid the promise, the less likely it is to be kept. (Don’t you love incumbents who tell you they will create jobs if they are re-elected?)

Some people have vision and no idea of what to do with it; they often make a mess. I prefer those who can diagnose a situation, decide what needs to be done and then figure out how.

An old saying in military circles holds that “Amateurs argue about tactics. Professionals worry about logistics.” That is, how to feed the troops and keep them in ammo, medical supplies and so on. Logistics failure beat both Napoleon and Hitler when they invaded Russia.

America’s Founding Fathers were able to diagnose, decide and figure out how. So were John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King, three Roosevelts (Teddy, FDR and Eleanor) and others I might mention. It helped that they had followers of whom the same could be said. On the other hand, Lenin and Hitler also had vision and ability. Not all vision is good vision.

We expect our president and the presidential advisors to have common sense, flexibility and the ability to make good decisions while inspiring universal confidence and respect. (It doesn’t help if the rest of the world thinks our leader is a dimwit, a crook or an oversexed weasel.) Our best presidents had these qualities, but the worst have not.

Although we don’t have to contend with bad presidents for more than eight years, it’s a different story with Congress.

The president is not a grownup Harry Potter who can say “Locomotor” (or whatever he says) and make things happen. He — or she, which is now a distinct possibility — must deal with a Congress that’s increasingly self-serving, in bondage to corporate campaign donors and contentious even with itself under a process called “advise and consent.”

For all its faults, our representative democratic government is far preferable to anything else. The people get what they ask for (but not always, say opponents of the Electoral College) ... maybe even what they deserve. They can participate in it, villify it or ignore it.

It can be spellbinding, particularly where Democrats are concerned, because they can get themselves all worked up and are often their own worst enemies. (Will Rogers said in 1935 that “I am not a member of any organized political party — I am a Democrat.” He also said that you have to be an optimist to become a Democrat and a humorist to remain one.)

Collectively, Republicans aren’t all that interesting. Their wrangling has become largely confined to who is conservative and/or evangelical enough to meet the acceptable standards. Individually, Republicans are at their most fascinating when they are caught raiding the cookie jar or the nookie jar and have to start wriggling for their political lives.

Democrats face a dilemma columnist Ellen Goodman put into words when she said she has wanted all her life to vote for someone other than a white man for president, but now has to choose between a white woman and a black man.

Barack Obama’s camp wants Hillary Clinton to quit the campaign, even though she could still win, because to press on would divide the party. (Reminds me of what some folks say is the “We’d better get out of Iraq now, because we might actually win, and what message would that send to the rest of the world?” mentality.)

Clinton would have a better chance if her party hadn’t decided the primary elections she won in Michigan and Florida won’t count because they were held too soon. That’s fascinating, considering that in 2000 and 2004 the Democrats accused Republicans of stealing the presidential elections by refusing to count votes that would have changed the results.

Rest assured that the Republicans will soon have intriguing problems of their own.

Our system doesn’t guarantee election of the best candidates or that we’ll have good government ... just that the Republic will survive regardless of who is running it. It works.

Besides, the people in our government and our politics are for the most part good, honest, competent citizens who believe in our country and what they are doing for it. I am proud that some of them are among my family and friends.

Millions of people elsewhere would love to have what Americans so often complain about and take for granted. Many of them suffer and die trying to obtain it.

Many of us have suffered and died so we can keep it.

Please join my friends of Vietnam Veterans of America Chapter 172, and me, next Sunday at 2 p.m. at Town Centre in Cumberland, when we remember and honor those who were Prisoners of War or remain Missing in Action from all of America’s wars.