Ask around, take a small poll of friends. Intrude on people in the elevators, on the bus, in the waiting room. When you are with a stranger for even a brief time, or when you are with friends, ask them this: do you believe that the American political system represents you and your beliefs?
It’s a cliché to say that the American political system is broken. It’s not broken; it’s simply evolved into something no one would have chosen. But identifying problems is easy. Anyone can offer a criticism of the status quo. Complaining is the primary manifestation of the first amendment in this country, from toddlers, to teens; citizens to corporations.
This is, in fact, my primary critique of politics today: both parties are more interested in proving the other party wrong than in developing effective national strategies to improve the lives of citizens. Republicans seem more interested in killing the Democrat’s bills rather than working with the Democrats to create legislation that includes compromises from both parties but which places the interests of the people above all else.
Politics has become the focus of politics. A Republican compromise that leads to health care reform would be a feather in the cap of the Democrat in office and thus improve the public perception of both the President and his party, likely at the expense of Republican congressional seats and/or Presidential hopefuls. Serving the people seldom seems like the foremost thought in the minds of our elected officials.
Republicans today (and Democrats from 2001-2008) won’t pay the price at the polls to affect a system of good federal governance. But who will pay the price for better government?
Last week the Supreme Court removed restrictions on how much corporations can contribute to campaign elections. The basis for the 5-4 decision was that limits on spending represent government restrictions on first amendment, free speech rights of Americans.
I got it; and on its face, I agree. However, while the decision removes limits on the right to free speech, it further restricts the ability of regular Americans to be heard. Those of us who contribute little or nothing to the campaigns of politicians already have limited access to our elected officials. Those officials, elected one vote at a time, are beholden to the major benefactors who made the acquisition of those votes possible. It is not the votes themselves that matter to politicians, but the ability to GET the votes that matters.
What is it that we want as citizens? Is it a literal interpretation of the First Amendment that may be technically correct, or a system in which we have access to the Representatives who supposedly represent us? There is no longer any volume control on free speech and while that removes government intrusions, it further limits access of regular people, like you and me. I don’t believe our country is better for this decision. Our government was founded as one “of the people and by the people.” Voting being our primary method of participating in the political system and as much a representation of our right to free speech as anything, the twenty-fourth amendment prohibits poll taxes so that no citizen is excluded from the political process. The Supreme Court’s defense of the First Amendment has done more to limit access than any 24th Amendment infringement ever could.
Are we willing to pay the price for the ability to be heard? Will we limit our right to unrestricted free speech so that all citizens have equal access and the influence of corporations and big money contributors is minimized?
Politicians from both parties laud the concept of smaller government. Americans pine for the shrinking of ever-growing federal infrastructure and programs. Yet I have not heard a public willingness to forego the very provisions that make up an engorged federal government. If we petition for smaller government, are we prepared to do without?
The root of the word government means to “bring into conformity with rules or principles or usage; impose regulations.” Do we really want to be “governed?” Or would we prefer to be led? If government backs away, are we prepared to step in to do those things for ourselves that a smaller government no longer provides us? Many of us already are doing those things at home.
No government program can erase the $70,000 of debt I carried out of a failed marriage. No government program can erase the $5000 of negative equity I have in a 2004 SUV that costs me $1000 a month to drive in payments, gas and insurance. No government program can add 60 points to my credit score (driven down by a lousy debt to income ratio because I still own a house I can’t sell in this depressed real estate market) so that I can buy a house and benefit from the tax advantages of homeownership. Yet, as I write this, I am living with my two children in the basement of a friends’ townhouse. We live like Harry Potter in the cupboard under the stairs because it’s all that we can do. Crunched by an income limited by salary and the usual budgetary demands of suburban life and ongoing payments to previous excess, something has to give. Unable to borrow a trillion dollars from the Chinese (though, to be honest, I haven’t called to ask) we make sacrifices to cope.
America as a society has payments to make. We owe on debts accumulated over the last century. We owe on wars we couldn’t afford. We owe money to entitlement programs from which we borrowed. We need to make investments in improving our access to our legislators. We need congressmen who will sacrifice what’s best for them in order to provide what’s best for us.
We can complain or we can participate. I’m already paying on my debts and so are you. Now let’s communicate to Washington that we are willing to pay the many and varied fees called for in improving the American political process.
As I thought about that later though, I don't feel that way at all. Honestly, I don't know how Disney delivers as much as they do for so little money. $60 for park admission seems high, yes. But look at the infrastructure, the options, the employees, the transportation. I can't believe they do it for as little as they do. Personally, I think it's a tremendous value and worth every penny I spent. 
But on the more important substantive issues, it was full of contradictions and misleading statements. He talked about being knocked down as a child and how his mother taught him to pick himself up. (Great lesson) Later, though, he lamented that at a time when so many Americans have been knocked down, Washington has done so little to help them get back up. (I thought, Senator, the point was to learn to pick YOURSELF up.)
He talked about how the most important aspect of work is that it provides the benefit of dignity and respect to Americans; but he then prattled on about how the work people have doesn't pay enough.
He talked about how tax breaks for corporations, which McCain supports, send jobs overseas. No, Joe, they don't. Tax breaks for corporations brings jobs home; companies have been sending jobs overseas because it already costs TOO MUCH to do business within the US.
He talked about a "promise that their tomorrow will be better than their yesterday." Who is making that promise, Senator? Only we can make our tomorrow better. Government can't and if government is promising that, and Americans want that, then this is the discussion that we should be having in America.
He quoted John McCain on Afghanistan from 3 years ago and Barack Obama on Afghanistan from 1 year ago. Why not break out a quote from McCain on Georgia from years ago and a quote from Obama on Georgia from last week?
Viewers of this speech who pay attention to his words, will not have been impressed with the content or the medium. 
However, the speech itself probably did little. She certainly had nothing to say that might sway Republicans to rethink their party affiliation. Furthermore, absent too were talking points that independents might find attractive. The speech seemed to have two purposes. First, convince her supporters to vote for Obama. But who else were they going to vote for? Those people involved enough in politics to be at or watch on tv the DNC convention are also likely to be people who will value their vote and not stay at home. Those who might elect not to vote at all, certainly were not in attendance and might well have been watching America's Got Talent and missed the speech completely.
Secondly, and more importantly to Mrs. Clinton, the speech was littered with reminders of why she should remain relevant in the Democratic Party. This was a "You Picked the Wrong Guy" speech.
Will we remember her or this speech in 4 or 8 years? I suspect not. The speech didn't brand itself with any tag lines that might survive the next few years. But it was a hell of an effort.
I believe not attending to these differences is the cause of the apparent divide in American thought. True conservatism (not that practiced by the Republicans) understands the importance of relationships between people and values those relationships over the individual. The whole is indeed greater than the sum of the parts. Liberal ideology seeks to raise the needs and desires of the individual above the collective good. This is where the Libertarians lose most Americans. Intuitively, Americans sense the error of the "my liberty is more important than the collective good" ethos and shun the movement. Neither the modern Democratic Party nor the Republican Party has found a way to tap into the American belief in Freedom while simultaneously bonding us to society. This is the time for Democratic and Republican ideologies to be replaced by less "me" centered thinking and our nation should return to its ideological roots, which means that we understand our obligation to each other to value and defend each other's freedom, not just our own.
The Democratic support that the super delegates are so keen on being a part of should be viewed as something of a mirage. What would the delegate count be if the events of the last month had taken place in December? Would Obama have as much support as he does now? Would he be the presumed candidate? And yet the Obama of today is the one the Democrats are likely to insist represents their party. The Obama that sees middle America as "clingers," the Obama that wouldn't repudiate Wright but is now quite right to repudiate, this is the Obama that will face McCain in November. For a party as down on America as this one, an Obama nomination seems awfully optimistic. Perhaps, it's not just Michigan and Florida that need a do-over: perhaps the Democrats ought to have a national do-over.
Sure he's liberal. Liberal we can handle. Heck even socialist we can handle. We have systems in place to deal with presidential initiatives which we ultimately don't approve of. But relinquishing any control to any kind of world organization is very troubling. Being outside of our borders and constitution, we could find ourselves subject to a body we don't agree with and yet have few ways to get out from under its jurisdiction. This is a slippery slope. I fear Obama's need to be liked and validated will prompt him to try to enter the U.S. into many global initiatives.
Hillary, despite her belief that her ascension has been preordained, has a low ceiling and a high floor. Obama continues to manifest himself as a divisive candidate, creating his own new voting demographic within his party, one that surely will never be as influential as, say, the evangelicals have been for the GOP. It is no wonder that Clinton supporters would sooner vote for McCain, the two have significantly more in common and, to their credit, Clinton supporters can see through the audacity of hype. The sad fact for the democrats is that these two represented the best the Democrats had to offer. Perhaps it is a tacit admission of poor policy that the Democrats chose two candidates who are best known for their celebrity status and not their policies or experience. If the policy postulates of the democrats had more merit, a "celebrity" wouldn't have be needed to endorse those policies.
I'm afraid I just don't believe that her feelings are the result of poorly timed contemplation. My understanding is that the family was present for the photo shoot and got to see the picture in advance. They liked it and moved on. NOW all of a sudden Miley is embarrassed? These are smart people familiar with the media. I, of course, have no inside information, this is just my opinion, but it would appear she wants to have her cake and eat it too: do the photo shoot (be edgy, become known to new demographics) and then make a heartfelt apology to appease the core fan group.
Is Obama smart enough to see the error of his proposal to meet with such foreign leaders? Probably not. Too impressed with his own palaver, he'll stand by his words. But can McCain and the GOP make the same connection and exploit Carter's follies as empirical evidence that they were correct in postulating what such visits from US dignitaries would bring about?
His words address the inherently conservative values (not republican--conservative) most Americans believe in. But he also points out that while we believe in them, we don't LIVE them. His article can be, and should be, a call for personal change. It will be an exciting read for the number of times you exclaim (too loudly for those sipping coffee nearby) "Yes!" Although, if I'm honest, it is depressing on a national scale because I know most Americans act on their immediate desires and not on the values they hold most sacred. But, in the end, change starts at home.
