I do not think that it is possible to overestimate the potential for corruption and tyranny from this bunch.  Two quotes that I recently put on Facebook explain.

"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences." -- C. S. Lewis

"An unshakable sense of one's own moral authority makes it easier to rationalize wrongful actions in the interest of preserving tenuous political and cultural authority. Of all forms of power, moral power may be the most seductive and corrupting." -- James Taranto

Ummm, taking your kid away from them for three months??? ;-)

I'd make an exception for McDonald's.  I mean, who can help but giggle when you look at the menu board and see that you can purchase a M'Crap?

My avatar's song came with the package. http://www.oldtimeradiofans.com/old_radio_commercials/Mr_Clean_Mr_Clean.mp3

Indoor flush toilets.

As CPAs know well, in matters financial, professionals are required to not only avoid conflicts of interest, they are to avoid the APPEARANCE of conflicts. The people at IRS, not to mention DOJ and other agencies, have utterly failed in this regard. A serious President would be calling for resignations, or would be outright firing, in order to prevent the possibility of scandal from tainting his administration's record. (They do, after all, serve at the pleasure of the President and can be terminated for any reason.) The absence of such actions is a clear signal that the President isn't a serious man, or that he, too, is corrupt, or both. Take your pick.

Pat, we live in hope.

The number of tax evaders among Democrats appointed to high office by this administration suggests that the opposite is true.

Wise observations, Sabrdance.  One comment: You say, "Political Pluralism, interest group politics, mass voting -all of them work on the principle that when everyone participates in the process -the extremes cancel each other out, information is aggregated, and we get better decisions."  I suggest that this is correct.  However, the environment we have no is one in which true pluralism is not tolerated and only certain interest groups are allowed.  This is partly due to the nature of the system and partly due to the nature of those who provide the loudspeakers -- the media.  In order for your scenario to play out as designed, all sides must get a fair and equal hearing to allow people to make informed choices.  But when the choosers are ill-informed due to bias, either from the system or the media, then the scenario cannot work the way you suggest.

"Democracies succeed or fail based on their journalism. That's how democracies work. They're only as good as the quality of the information that the public possesses." -- Scott Pelley, CBS anchor

CBS Anchor: 'We Are Getting Big Stories Wrong, Over and Over Again'
"Our house is on fire."

I retired from the University of California.  I can confirm what you all suspect: Appointing a bureaucrat to insure diversity is as redundant and oxymoronic a notion as you would imagine.  The University is, in some fields -- notably sciences and engineering, still a great institution in spite of the fact that it has had gutless and inept poltroons for administrators for several decades.  But the NAS, in their paper "A Crisis of Competence, The Corrupting Effect of Political Activism in the University of California", cast serious doubt on whether it is even possible to get an adequate education in other fields.  And as big as the problem is in the academic departments, the administrative departments, especially in Student Services, are even worse.  When I began my career it was a GREAT place to be!  By the end of my career it was a great place to be FROM.

Red Cat, you are a shrewd analyst.  ;-)  To quote Elijah, I see a cloud the size of a man's hand.

The Corvette, a wonderful vehicle, is produced by Government Motors.  The Left likes subsidizing inefficient, union-hobbled, inept businesses.  I do not.  If they could have done as Ford did and make it on their own, I'm down with them.

Part of what made the WWII generation the Greatest Generation is that it was the last time (in both senses of the phrase, I fear) that America went all in to stand against foreign aggression.  Ever since then, though the military was capable the civilian leadership was not.  The specter of another Hiroshima is one that only a strong leader with a clear vision and a good moral compass could countenance.  We have not had a strong leader in a time of hostility since then.

But now I fear, DocJay, that you are right; that even the Pentagon has become so politicized and so fearful of becoming another MacArthur -- hero one day only to be drummed out later -- that even there we will be unlikely to find a hero.

I imagine I will live out my life in reasonable comfort.  I'm not so sure about some of you who are younger.  And I seriously doubt that my grandkids will know the America in which I grew up.

The whole purpose of getting the Benghazi story out is so that by 2016 it'll be old news and everyone can join Hillary in asking, "What difference does it make?"

Baseball and apple pie.  Chevrolet, not so much.

Your naivete is charming.  The job of national level politicians is explicitly NOT to get things done.  You fix a problem and you're working yourself out of a job.  Politicians don't FIX problems, they CREATE problems.  Ex. In 2008, over 80% of Americans had health insurance they were happy with.  Of the remaining 20% about 1/4 self-insured, 1/4 were uninsured by choice.  So, did the politicians fix things for the 10%?  Of course not.  They screwed things up for everyone.  THAT is what politicians do, whether they're Rs or Ds.