text: The term 'politician' implies the person employs politics to achieve goals that cannot be achieved by the will of a single person absent the consent and willing support of other people.  Politicians come in all types. All require a healthy ego,but some are more "cold" than others. It does not mean they do not "care" about the "People".  All the political parties in USA have a "core belief" about HOW they wish to do the most good for the most people. These "core beliefs" are very different. But they do both have the same intent - to help the people and thus strengthen the nation (town, county, state - whatever).  They both also deal with a limited set of resources with which to show how they "care" by helping in one way or another. In the end, they must achieve allocation of the resources in a way they feel will do the most good and do it with (in USA anyway) a majority of thier peers accepting the solution. If the politician does not "care" for enough of the people, they will sense it and turn him out - or his party out. In a perfect world ALL the people will find some measure of gain but at the margin of satisfaction there will be just under 50% who would prefer a different politician was leading the policy agenda.\nI think one politician that "connects" and reaches a high level of satisfaction among his constituents is Jeb Bush. I think Reagan was able to "connect" like that and also John Kennedy. I think Clinton and Bush "cared/care" but the fog of partisanship in the rank and file (with these particular personalites among others in our history) leaves about half the people unable to see the good the other half are seeing.