Passage Summary: Politicians promise to stay out of our hair, but we keep voting for the ones who offer us help; since that help is paid for by taxes, and taxes are a form of government meddling, the meddling never stops.

Conclusion: Governmental interference in the lives of citizens is unlikely to decrease significantly in a democratic system.

Reasoning: Voters consistently elect politicians who promise assistance, and since providing that assistance requires tax revenue—which is a form of intrusion—the intrusion remains constant.

Analysis: The argument relies on the idea that the 'intrusion' of taxes will always cancel out or exceed any 'reduction' in intrusion promised by candidates. To strengthen this, we need to solidify the link between government assistance and a net increase in governmental presence. If you find an answer that suggests the assistance itself involves even more regulation or that the taxes required are always substantial, the editor's cynical (but perhaps realistic) outlook becomes much more robust.