I strongly believe that it is OK to dirty your hands as a politician as long as the ends justify the means. Following the neo-classical model, it is important for a politician to learn how not to be good because I believe that it is a dog eat dog world. If a politician fails to take devious actions because they are against his morals, then someone will walk all over him who is willing to do it. As long as one's actions have the states best interest in mind, then it is acceptable to do whatever is necessary to achieve that end goal.
I myself am not a very religious person and am not against sinning in the position of a politician. If a person thinks that sin should never be committed in life, then that person should not be a politician. In order to be a strong politician, a person must be bold and adaptable as well as always being one step ahead of everyone else; and if the only way to get one step ahead is through strategic amoralism, then so be it.
Personally, I do not care if my leader is a nice person with a kindred spirit. What I look for in a leader is a strong person who is willing to do whatever is necessary to ultimately benefit the state. There is no being nice in politics. The nice guy is the guy who is easily manipulated and gets taken advantage of. Everyone always has their own self-interest at hand and if a person isn't willing to do wrong things to put him ahead, then he will fall behind.
I do not think it's important to actively threaten your citizens with physical punishment in order to instill fear in them. That's what laws are for; they serve as a threat to the people, which is what keeps them in place.
As far as the moral issue is concerned, I'm not saying that being evil is how a person ultimately ends up successful. I am saying that as long as the 'good' that comes out of the situation outweighs the 'bad' that is put into it, then it is acceptable. If you are able to get the job done and be successful, your people will learn to love you whether or not you act immorally or unethically.
