It's not as simple as all that.

[theoldwolf]

"The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the presidency. It will be easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to an electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails us. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The republic can survive a Barack Obama. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president."
-- Author Unknown

Yes, it's a good quote. I wish I knew the author. And, it's more complicated than a nation choosing a rampant socialist hell-bent on dragging the country down to captivity and mediocrity.

I belong to the confederacy. I voted for the man, but only because the thought of having Sarah Palin a heartbeat away from the presidency scared me even worse. I rue my choice based on results, but still don't think I chose poorly.

Despite caucuses and grassroots political efforts, those who rise to the top of the governmental septic tank usually end up being the big chunks - people who seem harmless or easy to manipulate in the eyes of the moneyed king-makers. Those who have the decency and integrity to make good leaders usually decline to run, and we end up, every four years, voting for the evil of two lessers.

Obama and his mantra of "Change!" (not unique, by the way - it's a recurring theme in almost every campaign) was embraced by a nation tired of eight years of the abuses of power by the Bush administration, led in everything but title by Cheney and his Halliburton star-chamber, or reasonable fac-similes. We hoped for something better, and instead got another kind of emperor, yet one equally unclad.

Despite the human failings of the founding fathers, they envisioned a nation built on the principles of justice for all, honesty, diligence, hard work, fairness, and looking to a higher power for strength. Despite the fact that it took men like Lincoln and Martin Luther King to extend the dream to the previously unemancipated, the writers of our constitution formed a confederacy of men of faith and men of humanism, striving to create a place where all people would have opportunity, and be free from oppression.

The only change that will really count is the change that people of good will can effect within themselves, their families, and their neighborhoods - people working together to build a world that works for everyone, with no one left out.

I will not give up hope that this is yet possible.

Comments

[bayliss.livejournal.com]

To be honest there is no hope for us.

Both parties are equally corrupt, hell bent on destroying what was once good about this country. Neither party has truly tried to fix the evils done by both and the fear mongering that is going on by the tea-partiers only makes things worse.

Obama hasn't been the worst president we have had nor will he be the best but he was better in my eyes than the alternative.

what we need is a re-boot of the parties. A do-over so to speak. we need to start over and completely revamp the whole system and truly get rid of the corruption. that is the only way for the whole system to be truly fair and just.

[secoh.livejournal.com]

How can it be achieved though, without violent and bloody revolution? Historically that has been the only successful method of wide socio-political change.

[bayliss.livejournal.com]

That's the problem I see.

That's why I said there is no hope for us little people. No hope for us at all. those who make the rules have money and those who do not simply wish we could change things.

I had hope... But now I have very little faith in either party. I should have just stuck with my green affiliations instead of going back to the democrats.

[oceansedge.livejournal.com]

part of the inherent problem with democracy is that it relies on the rule of the majority.

Unfortunately the majority isn't always right.

and I fear we've evolved into a world where the kind of leaders we really need can't possibly get elected, even if they existed.

[marmoe.livejournal.com]

I think, the following is an interesting read. A warning, the author holds pretty harsh views on the tea party people.

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/may/27/tea-party-jacobins/

I'm too far outside of the American society to judge whether Mark Lilla's article is an insight or a folly. If you find the time to read it, what do you think of it?

[ccdesan.livejournal.com]

It's an interesting take. What I got out of the article is that my Libertarianism is not your Libertarianism - there is a decided lack of definition within the movement, and that different flavors have yielded different social results over time. The article has merit, but seems to have a decidedly liberal/Democratic slant.

We have government for a purpose. The Tea Party movement seems out of touch with that fact, but on the other hand, the federal government has intruded too far into the lives of people for my own taste. We all need to continue striving for a workable middle ground.

[dhlawrence.livejournal.com]

I'm reminded of the story of Mouseland, as told by Canadian politician Tommy Douglas. The inhabitants of Mouseland, as the name suggests, were mice, and they lived much as we do. They even had a Parliament; a Parliament made up of big black cats. In all fairness, the cats governed well and made good laws--good for the cats at least. However, the laws were tough on the mice. One day, they decided enough was enough and marched en masse to the polls to vote out the black cats. And voted in the white cats.

Until political parties start coming up with candidates who are voted into office rather than out of it, this cycle is going to repeat. Washington saw this coming; he didn't want the US to have political parties. But they didn't listen, and look what you ended up with.