Sometimes I wonder if it wouldn't be better for me to be a more single-minded individual, a thought exacerbated by the situation I currently find myself in. The problem is, well, I have a million things to say, all relevant, all meaningful, and yet, somewhere in there I'm supposed to find one, just one that is truly meaningful to me that remains obscure and generally not discussed in blogging circles. Apathetically lamenting the imperfect world we live in that will never be anything but corrupt and an affront to democracy and freedom isn't much of a help either. I guess I'll start at the beginning and see where if anywhere it takes me.
The question remains, what exactly is a meaningful political debate, and how does one go about creating it? Personally, I find little in the way of meaning in the modern political climate. I see elections as a choice between the lesser of two evils, not as a test of who will be better for the country.
We live in a world where only the most conniving and deftly political creatures are amoral enough to thrive.The honest human beings, the genuinely good people who aren't planning their next flanking maneuver on the political battlefield but are instead focusing on improving the country in meaningful and lasting ways just aren't ruthless enough to actually make any headway against the scores of politician's politicians. What's more, the sole driving goal of those who wield the power to create change are using it not as promised, to create useful legislation and lead the country into a better, more productive, safe and free society. Instead the singular focus of those men (and a tiny handful of women) is to get reelected. And when they can't get reelected, they have their children or their siblings or their wives run.
Perhaps more than anything, it is these legacies that anger me most about the political climate in this country. Virtually inheriting a job always struck me as very un-American and inhibitive of true progress and democracy. The idea of government of, by and for the people just doesn't seem to work when people imply a virtual aristocracy in a country who lists among its founding principles the fact that "all men are created equal." Call me crazy, call me an idealist, but I was under the impression the founding fathers meant for political offices to be contests among a host of different people, not a cycle of one super-powerful political family after another.
