Your point about trust in politicians strikes at something most people feel but rarely unpack in detail. There is a distinction between approving of specific actions and granting blanket trust. The first is selective and situational, the second assumes consistent integrity over time. History and observation tell us that the latter is dangerous because politics molds incentives that often run counter to the public good.

The corruption you describe is not only about overt dishonesty but the systemic pressure to conform to a structure that rewards compromise of values in exchange for influence and survival. That means even well meaning individuals are tested in ways that make sustained integrity extremely rare. It is less about the moral fiber of any given person and more about the nature of the environment they operate in.

Your mention of "The Righteous Mind" is important here because it pushes the conversation past partisanship into personality and psychology. People often think their political alignment is purely ideological but in reality it is intertwined with instinctive moral foundations shaped by temperament and life experience. That is why some reject tribalism entirely and find both major political identities limiting.

The fear of homelessness and insecurity is a powerful motivator for nationalism and other protective sentiments. If individuals feel rootless or without a safety net they become far more willing to attach themselves to a collective that promises stability even if the promises are flawed. This is why emotional factors often outweigh factual analysis in political discourse.

The practical takeaway is to detach trust from personality politics and instead evaluate any political actor transactionally. Support decisions that align with your principles but never grant blind reliance. By keeping political engagement anchored in outcome rather than identity you insulate yourself from a system that thrives on emotional loyalty at the expense of accountability.