Question

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that in order to be a politician in current reality, you have to lie, cheat, and do other immoral things; otherwise you will never get elected. According to utilitarian morality, it seems there is justification for being a politician even though you will lie and cheat, if you think your influence will be preferable to that of others. By contrast, according to deontological morality, it is forbidden to lie or cheat at all, and therefore it would seem that in current reality a person is forbidden to go into politics. That is, in principle it is permissible to be a politician who does not cheat or lie, but then he will not be elected, so in practice this is only a theoretical case.
One could object and say that if all human beings were not politicians, society would collapse. But in my opinion that is not really an objection, since it is not that being a politician is forbidden; rather, in theory it is permissible to be a politician who does not cheat. In other words, even if one applies Kant's test of “what if everyone behaved as I do,” this should not be a problem.
If so, it follows that according to the Rabbi's view, which is deontological to the best of my recollection, it is forbidden to be a politician. Does the Rabbi agree?