I try my best to keep emotions out of issues such as politics.

Caption: Bart pinpoints the exact moment at which Ralph’s heart rips in half.

I hope that’s not gonna be you.

Knowledge as to the destructive nature of Bush policies can easily be seen once EFFECTIVE policies are in place. I consider myself somewhat naive on the issue of politics and humans in general. I give them credit more often than either deserve so this is where my opinions come from.

I think a fair majority of the 33% still favoring Bush are mostly one-issue voters and in the longterm we are going to start to lose one-issue voters. The younger generations are caring less and less about issues such as abortion, gay marriage, religion, and other issues on the same lines. And most young voters don’t seem to vote on just one-issue. I might be wrong here, but this is just my opinion.

But if that viewpoint is right, than the hopes of us learning from the mistakes of Bush policies is even better. Hell even some one-issue voters, such as the Evangelical Christians, are starting to see the downfall to one-issue voting. And this leads me to think our country can start to grow with a candidate like Obama. Giving people hope is a form of strength and it can lead to change.

Coming back briefly to your society as nation idea: Do you think the rest of the world should be concerned about who the President of the United States is? Isn’t it odd that they’d be so interested in our business.

It doesn’t matter if they should be interested in our choice of president. We tend to throw our weight around so it could matter very much to them who that turns out to be. They have a good reason to be interested.

As Pierre Trudeau once said; “Living next to the United States is in some ways like sleeping with an elephant. No matter how friendly and even-tempered is the beast, one is affected by every twitch and grunt.” In our essentially borderless world, everybody is “next to” the United States. And we are next to them.

A society - our nation - is a lot more like an organism that has fallen into a moral sleep, and needs to wake up.

It is interesting that you associate our society with our nation and not as transnational despite the globalized view of business, finance and militarism.

But let’s leave that be; I’d assume that no organism remains static, but that it is forced to adapt in response to external pressures. To revert to a state of idealized “stasis”, an unevolving form where the passage of time does not bear doesn’t seem realistic. Maybe that nostalgic inertia is the concept of reverting back to the idealized constitution — but that does not keep apace with forces of plutocracy, oligarchy, technology. *We* can collectively assume that those forces are ineffective and are not using consolidated media or mainstream parties to hide their impact, but I do not assume that.

The “destruction so something better can come” model is way too optimistic; history provides too many examples of something worse following a revolution.

And yet many view the French and American Revolutions as something better than what preceded them. At least for a while.

A revolution does not need to be violent, but it does need to have somnabulistic people examine themselves enough so that they’d consider change — sometime through hardship or the taking away of comfort. I no longer believe that we have a standard of living, but instead have a standard of comfort or affluence. A standard of comfort does not encourage one to be particularly self-introspective.

I believe that change can be forward looking (like with range voting and IRV, but conventional forces (plutocracy, oligarchy) have heavily invested in the current political parties and system. Those parties will react violently to changes that threaten their power and influence. They use consolidated media to bring issues to the fore, and to define those issues in terms that suit their goals. This is no more conspiracy than people working toward their self interest goals in accepted business practices.

You desire reversion (a form of backward looking change) when you allude to regaining the moral compass. That’s safe because it assumes that you know what was there — but I look to forward change that may be novel and unpredictable. Hence, change itself in the political economy is risky and would involve the conflict of powers that support the current system, and those wanting to evolve to something that better represents both the will of the people, and the health of the planet.

Coming back briefly to your society as nation idea: Do you think the rest of the world should be concerned about who the President of the United States is? Isn’t it odd that they’d be so interested in our business.

That seems to imply that “us” is worth salvaging despite evidence to the contrary.

Rusty old car is the wrong analogy. A society - our nation - is a lot more like an organism that has fallen into a moral sleep, and needs to wake up.

The “destruction so something better can come” model is way too optimistic; history provides too many examples of something worse following a revolution. We have changed for the worse; now we need to change for the better. We need to locate our moral compass - it’s around here someplace - and rediscover our bearings.

That’s way more strategic than I can go.

I think of it as doing something personally distasteful for the benefit of future generations. Beats recycling.

But it seems much more likely that four more years of pandering to stupidity will destroy us.

That seems to imply that “us” is worth salvaging despite evidence to the contrary.

I think of it like an old car that keeps requiring huge repair investments, but you can’t let go for sentimental reasons. Perhaps the ass imprint on the seat is particularly comfortable. In all other cars one tries, the ass never gets comfy enough and it’s immediately tactile.

Eventually though, it dawns on you that the comfy ass imprint is keeping one from a totally new car which is a better investment all around.

Hint: car = current state of politics.

Now that I see that both parties are hacks representing only the interests of the few, I’ll vote for a Republican, hoping that four more years of GWB will radicalize the middle into action. or just push them to the left.

That’s way more strategic than I can go. I am weary of a president with no moral compass, though I fear for a good man burdened with fixing the damage he has done.

It feels like our country is sinking. 35% of Americans approve of Bush, and when I turn on the radio in my car, I know why they approve. I am weary of the constant call to dispose of the poor, to attack our enemies at any cost, and of plutocratic policies guaranteed to make more enemies to replace the ones we kill.

In 2000 I didn’t think there was much difference between the Republicans and the Democrats. There still isn’t. We are a people desperately in need of inspiration, sick from the nightmare of relentless fear, and unable to face our own shortcomings lest we be thought French.

Obama speaks to our country as it is. I fear for him, but even more for us. We’re past the point where the candidate most likely to do the right thing offers more than a fifty percent hope of turning the country around. But it seems much more likely that four more years of pandering to stupidity will destroy us.