Elected officials serving "in good faith"?

[MyshkinCommaPrince]

One of the things that bothers me most about the modern Republican party, the "Tea Party" faction (not an actual party!), and the RW Libertarian movement, is that they seem to want to enter government in order to demolish government itself, or to protest the very idea of government. This strikes me as not entering the role of public servant in good faith. They are not seeking to serve the public, but to protest against the very idea of public service.

I don't know how valid this impression of mine may be, so I thought I would ask questions about the thought. Is there any history to this sort of thing in our own government, or in other democracies? Is it considered a truly legitimate approach to governing? I have tended to avoid labeling those who are acting this way as "terrorists" or such, but they are at least subversives. Have they found an exploitable weakness in the idea of democracy, which they now use with full legitimacy? Or can this approach be justifiably criticized?

In addition to any possible history of such subversion in government, what kind of precedent is being set? How might this sort of thing affect representative democracies in the future? Is there any way to rein it in? Should there be any effort to try to prevent this approach in the future, some kind of "good faith" test to be applied to elected officials? Could our side do something like this in the future? Have we, in the past?

With power should come responsibility, or so our culture (at least part of it) would seem to believe. The tactics of the powerless may be less defensible when used by the powerful. My thoughts... are losing steam. I am curious about what thoughts others might have. This is only the second time I've begun a discussion, so... please be kind to me.

[blkmusclmachine]

1. Suuuure they are.

[underthematrix]

2. I think some of them are foreign agents. I am serious

[LuvNewcastle]

3. This is a very good point.

These people are getting elected in order to subvert the whole process in which they're supposed to be taking part. It really should be illegal. Should people be allowed to serve who basically want to overthrow the whole system? Definitely something to think about.

By the way, Prince Myshkin is one of my all-time favorite characters. What an idiot!

[MyshkinCommaPrince]

4. Is there a precedent?

Is there any precedent for this sort of thing, in representative government? If so, I wonder what the history of such efforts is. Or is this new? If this is a new thing, what sort of precedent is being set now? I feel like important aspects of the whole situation are being ignored, and I'm not quite sure how to try to research the matter.

One would assume that taking public offices under false pretenses would be illegal already, but apparently not. I suppose the argument could be made that the apparent subversion is just a tactical choice made in a given situation. It would be hard to prove intent to subvert. Hmm.