They aren't mutually exclusive. There exists a multitude of political organizations. All of them want power and status (there's nothing wrong with that; up to a point, egoism is a virtue), but not all of them want the same things.

So yeah, they want power and status because they are humans. They join party X as opposed to party Y because that's their preferred direction.

I wasnt saying that they were mutually exclusive. I dont think that theres anything necessarily wrong with this either.

I was saying that it's more common for ideology to be an afterthought for most high level politicians rather than the primary reason (as you previously asserted) they get into politics.

You'd expect that it would mean less intransigence about policy in the face of democratic pressures, but it doesnt. Probably because money is the real driver.

I personally know one politician who was part of a mainstream party politics for years and his ideology was... fluid at best. He ran for election and lost and was almost immediately shunted into a safe, well paid job at a corporate NGO where he rabbits on about sustainable investment.

After digging into the personal stories of many other people in this "left" party I realized that his story was completely normal. The candidate in my area was a black woman pulled from a public relations company linked to the party elites. She speaks with the veneer of ideology (vaguely and on "safe" topics) but it's obvious that it's ambition that drove her.

Also because power and status are how you push policy.