With the countdown on in the looming American debt crisis the whole situation would be comical if it didn't have such tragic implications. While the partisan finger pointing continues "our" polarized democracy careens towards the precipice of self-destruction. The matter of who is to blame has long ago become obsolete. Can a governmental structure such as we have long continue to survive? Should it?
Let us remember that this experiment we call "government by the people, for the people" is still an infant in the larger historical context. A system that is just over two hundred years old is a mere blip on the radar of human societies. Ostensibly voting for one's leaders is such a trivial notion that all but our most recent progenitors would never recognize it, let alone endorse it. I would argue that the most common form of government since the rise of the nation-state some six hundred years ago has been one manifestation of aristocracy or another.
Now before the reader gets worked up over this supposition let us keep firmly in mind the situation in which the United States now finds itself. The political system under which we live is gravely ill if it doesn't already have a foot in the grave. How did this happen you ask? The give and take of compromise which makes up a "healthy" democracy (an oxymoron?) has become morbidly emaciated. Does not the very sight of what is taking place in D.C. make every sane person want to become violently ... well violent? For past elections, certainly since the advent of mass comunications, political posts have been open to the highest bidder, not the most qualified. I do believe that the White House has long had a "FOR SALE" sign on it. Politicians as well as pundits no longer make any pretense about it when discussing upcoming elections that it is the candidate who can raise the most money, the one with the deepest pockets, the one to amass the largest war chest, who will win office. I suppose that gives the word "win" a whole new meaning.
Now in truth I am not advocating the development of a ruling aristocracy; just a casual review of history gives light to the tragic abuses and other forms of corruption that plagued millions under that yoke. Yet certainly there is a better way in which to discern our leaders other than their ability to make persuasive speeches or outspend their rivals only to act like selfish children once in office. There is no arguing that the current president is one of if not the least experienced man to hold this highest office. By the same token, many congressmen have a great deal of experience in legislating but it is that very entrenched careerism that spawns the corruption we have been witnessing. "Off with their heads!"
I supppose until we can find a way to truly measure the worth of the man or woman to be elected, for it is indeed the quality of the ingredients that determine the tastefulness of the cake, we will be forced to do a better job at our homework before casting our ballot. When we can achieve that level of aristocracy, men and women worthy to lead based on their merits alone, then perhaps we may create a new age of enlightenment.
[writer's note: my dog just came up to me after I gave her a bath today and reminded me that despite the mess our nation is in, yes, dogs still rule!]
