US Presidential Election

I live in the UK (Glasgow) and have been watching the BBC`s coverage of the forthcoming US Presidential election with interest. Knowing that many US citizens are regular visitors to this board, I would be interested to sound out your opinions on the apparent inaccessability of the US political system to the ordinary American.

The perception over here is that the financial muscle required to run for political office (not just the Presidency) makes this an impossibility for the overwhelming majority of the population. I also get the impression that many Americans have a deep love for their country, but are extremely cynical towards their leaders. I have never visited the US and can therefore only rely on the reports I read in the press and see on television, but I`d be very interested to hear what the people who really know (that`s you guys) have to say on the matter.

One last point, my intention is not to start a heated political debate on this thread. I`m interested in the perception ordinary Americans have of the US political system, not opposing views on the Presidential candidates.

(PS: Darth Tater, I made a flippant remark on the Creation vs Evolution thread a while back. I wasn`t meant to be taken seriously, but I`m sorry if I offended you.)

I have been following these elections very closely, almost obsessively. I know a lot about almost all the major elections going on this year. But most people aren't like me. Even most adults tend to tune out politics until the fall, and even then they aren't terribly interested. Only 49% of the electorate voted in the 1996 presidential election.

Being rich can obviously help you attain political power, but that's not the only way. I live in New Jersey, and a multimillionaire who had never held office before, Jon Corzine, spent $30 million on the primary alone and managed to defeat a well-known former governor for the Democratic nomination for Senate. But in other cases, the political party that the person belongs to will give them money. They also hold fundraisers. If I were old enough and wanted to be in politics I'd probably have to go to endless fundraisers to get enough money.

A lot of people are disillusioned with the political system and are sitting out the election as a result. I think that those people are forgetting their civic duty to vote. If they believe the politicians are all crooks, they should vote for someone new. By not voting, they lose their voice in the country's government.

Taimar, you hit the nail on the head. Politics in the US are almost totally corrupt. True, it's a persons civic duty to vote, but what do they do when they equally despise both candidates? Yes, it would be nice if a decent person ran for office, but it's not likely, it is all about money and money corrupts, just human nature.

WARNING: VERY LONG (WINDED) POST!

I've also followed this and every election for the last 25 years pretty carefully.

Money is a big deal in politics.

As Winston Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others."

And you cannot have a democracy in a nation where the government can control free speech by limiting and regulating money in politics. I think the best you can do is forbid political contributions from businesses, political action committees, unions, or any entity other than a person casting a vote. Let individual citizens donate, and let ALL donations be seen IMMEDIATELY. Then, we do not limit the right of the people to speak (with money) but we will know EXACTLY who is saying what with how much! (This is the Alan Keyes position on Campaign Finance Reform.)

Politics and power are not static. This is why Utopian schemes never work. Good and evil are real and cannot be controlled or eliminated by economic practices or by any form of government.

The American Way, though you'd never know it from the last eight years, is to practice the least possible government.

Our Founders believed that government is a necessary evil. As such it must be kept to its smallest possible size and power. For that reason, they instituted checks and balances both of an institutional and a dynamic nature and constitutionally limited the power and authority of government. Institutionally, we separate powers of the executive, judiciary, and legislature and set them almost against each other. Dynamically, we expect that over the long run all of the competing special interests and powers tend to balance one another out. Americans wanted a government that would be gridlocked and tied up, unable to really do much without overwhelming support of the people.

The vote was given to adult male property owners. This franchise has since been expanded to include many who the Founders thought did not have enough of a "stake" in the world to make the best choices. These electoral choices were cast in terms of the enlightened self interest of the owners of property, heads of house and farm and industry.

We've moved away from these principles into Uninformed Socialism, as has most of Western Civilization, though we are not quite so far along. The Third Way is not the right way! It is a path paved with good intentions that leads to ever more government power. Which is to say, power which could, and inevitably would, corrupt. We try to keep power therefore in the hands of the electorate, not in the institution of government.

In the early 19th century, the "money powers" and the "central banks" began making their power felt. The Industrial Revolution created great wealth and power. This has proceded at a geometric pace.

Money can buy the advertising presence necessary in a world of mass media to cut through Madison Avenue, Hollywood, and official (and unofficial) Party propaganda. As the Supreme Court ruled, in politics, constraining money is constraining speech. This makes it more difficult for a poor man to be elected, but not impossible.

(And in direct response to the opening statement above, "the overwhelming majority" of people are actually not fit to lead, and knowing this themselves, don't want to lead, and so this is really not a problem. A poor man who stirs people, gradually through hard work, or like lightning through chance celebrity, will find it necessary to TURN DOWN money offered to his campaign! That is, if he's true to his principles.)

The power to restrict free speech, particularly political speech, was denied to our government. Without such freedom, inevitably the power of an unchecked government would become corrupt and tyranical.

THAT IS WHY WE MUST BE EVER SO CAREFUL WHEN WE TALK OF REFORMING CAMPAIGN FINANCING! THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT TYPE OF FREE SPEECH AND THIS RIGHT MUST BE RETAINED BY THE PEOPLE. ("What kind of government do we have, Dr. Franklin?" "A representative republic, if you can keep it!" --attributed to Ben Franklin after the Constitutional Convention)

The genius of the Founders is shown in that even in this 21st century world, where national economies are measured in the trillions and personal fortunes are reckoned in the billions, the dynamic checks and balances of competing interests hold these powers in check against one another.

That's how I live in my little hole free from their scrutiny and control!

Now if a poor little hobbit wanted to run for office, could he rise to the top in America, though all the mighty powers vied for emminence as well?

Yes! (Forget for a moment that Americans tend to vote for the taller candidate.)

Bill Clinton started out the son of a poor Arkansas widow. But I need not discuss here the dark interests I think he represents!

The Founders hoped for a government where men (yes, men!) would be BEGGED by their fellow citizens to handle the affairs of government for them. These fellows would leave the farm, serve a few days each year, and try not to ever return to office if they could help it. If our civic minded hobbit, let's call him Sam, were pressed into it, he might become Mayor.

In a great Republic, the Mayor of the Shire (near Chunchula, Alabama) might attract notice and even renown throughout Eregion for his deliberate decisions, his environmentalism, etc. He might be elected Governor, or even President Gamgee one day. The powerful interests (Rivendell Inc., Blue Mountain Founderies, Galadrim Garments, etc.) might well line up BEHIND him, seeking to have a decent fellow in high places who would let them run their interests in peace, as long as they did not get too far out of line. The powerful Pipeweed Lobby might whip up some candidates against him, after President Gamgee decides that pipe smoking was not for children. (Stunts their growth...)

But the people of the Shire, not to mention Bree, like their pipeweed and vote poor Sam out of office. After eight years of Sandyman, they may wish they hadn't, but the will of the people was done.

The Hobbits thereafter, continue smoking the weed and get ever smaller, if they never change their ways. Smaller, but still free.

We might wish that we could use government to fix the self-destructive tendencies of the Hobbits. But that is a perilous wish: fulfillment would be a cure worse than the disease.

The only alternative was to have given Sam a Ring of Power, or the power of Big Government (shudder). Good old Sam Gamgee might have ruled benevolently enough, and the Hobbit elected after him. But sooner or later, a Sandyman would get in office. If Sandyman is freely elected to a small government, his errors and evils can be kept small as well, and endured until his term is up, and he is bloodlessly cast from office. But if Sandyman is elected, or succeeds by assasination or the like, and he is made ruler over a big government, he might sieze all power, or use such great power as he was given in folly or in terrible ways that few would survive.

Lacking long-lived Men of high nobility (but even Numenor fell) and lacking immortal Elven Kings, we think that limited decentralized government permits the least evil. We can't avoid occassional scoundrels and idiots, but we can endure them. We hope to avoid tyranny, which makes endurance, not to mention survival, a much more difficult undertaking.

A Capitalist republic is not a perfect solution. But it is the best ever devised, and I am dismayed to see us seeming to abandon the American Experiment in favor of some Third Way between Capitalism and Communism. Socialism by any other name, is still a road to tyranny.

And this is the philosophical reason Americans will restore the Republicans to power in the White House and hopefully in Congress at the same time, for once! Many other reasons for voting this way (believe me!) can be found, but that sort of thing doesn't seem to be the purpose of this thread!

P.S. For what it's worth, I'd prefer more and better options this time around, myself. But I certainly WILL vote!

Here, Here! Well stated and thought out response. Are you sure you're not part Vulcan!

Actually we have two candidates; one who is moral, has integrity and a basic down to earth honesty. The other who doesn't know a fund raiser when the money is handed to him; thinks WJC is the greatest P. ever; defended attacks on him during his lying about everything and was totally silent after WJC found guilty of everything.
So it's an easy choice. Yes money is involved but we have a choice.

..If you're not a liberal in your twenties, there is something wrong with your heart. If you are still a liberal in your forties, there is something wrong with your head...
...Winston Churchill

Could you just tell me who is who in this race? I don't follow Canadian politics, less american's...

To Gilthalion:

It's seems to me that what is grafted onto capitalist democracy is some humanism; it may look to you as something towards socialism, and because of that I think it's too easy to use the pejorative association with socialism to undermine the humanistic elements.

Therefore I would like you to point out to me what are those elements that are grafted to capitalistic democracy that make you see them as very bad for the "american experiment".

Is it welfare?
Is it spending money to help the poor get a chance to get better education so that the cycle of poverty is broken?
Is it affirmative action?

I'd like some examples.
(hey, we have our own problems up here in Canada, so we're not really in a better place to comment!)

The main contenders for President are Vice President Al Gore, a Democrat, a very intelligent person who is a big environmentalist. He's been in public service since the 1970's. His opponent is Governor George W. Bush of Texas, a charming but otherwise empty man who coasted through education and career through family connections and wealth and is fairly new to politics. Some minor candidates with no hope of winning include Ralph Nader of the liberal Green Party, who could spoil the election in favor of Bush, and the two candidates of the split reform party, a wacko named Pat Buchanan and some scientist named Hagelin. Hmm, perhaps I've put a bit of a partisan slant on that?

UGH!! I can't think of anything that gives me a bigger headache!

And what's the difference between Democrats and Republicans? I always get mixed up between the two

Well, I think the Democrats equivalent here in Canada would be the Liberals and the Conservative Party.

The Republicans would be the older Reform Party, including some former Reform members who had to quit because of scandalous opinions.

hehe...

Differences between the parties?

Well there's plenty. Just a few examples:
Democrats tend to be pro-choice on abortion. The Republican platform calls for outlawing all kinds of abortion, even in cases where the mother's life is at stake. Democrats are for gun control, the Republicans are allied with the NRA and tend to want no gun restrictions. Republicans tend to favor very large tax cuts that often benefit the rich (hmm, Republicans tend to be rich. coincidence? ). Democrats tend to reach out to minorities more, and they almost always carry the black and hispanic vote. Despite their convention diversity showing, the Republicans aren't terribly diverse.

The Democrats tend to be environmentalists, and protect wildlife. Democratic President Clinton has set aside millions of acres of wildlife preserves. I believe Republican Presidents Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and Bush set aside no acres even combined, or very close to that number. I don't know the exact numbers but I know that Democratic President Carter set aside more environmental preserves in his 4 years in office than the 4 recent Republican presidents did in combined 20 years of administrations. (I will search for the exact numbers if you want). Republicans tend to put business above the environment. For example, Republicans want to drill for oil in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, but Democrats want to preserve the area. Interestingly, both Bush and his running mate Cheney, have strong ties to Big Oil. Republicans tend to be pro-Business and Democrats are pro-Labor (unions).

Well that about sums it up, anything I missed?

So, I guess you'll vote democrat? =)
Anybody would, after what you said of 'em!

Well, anyone else care to give his opinion?

(EDIT: As I was typing this, there were many other posts! This is my second one today on this thread, so I'll let a lot of things pass that I would like to comment on. Also, I'll be busy the next few days and may not be able to keep up! I'll try to check back in. Now, back to the post...)


To mbilder:

***Actually, Al Gore is the empty man. Seriously. Anyone who could stand before the world on the day of Clinton's impeachment and proclaim him as "one of America's greatest Presidents" is a man who has sold his soul. If Gore were REALLY intelligent, he would have denounced the Traitor and watched the Democratic stand in the Senate melt away. He would then have been seen as a man who you might disagree with, but respect as a man of character and principle. He also would have been an incumbent President running for election with Clinton no longer disgracefully hogging the stage. Now, only the most partisan defenders think that he will be anything other than a loser.

And don't forget DAN QUAYLE cleaned Gore's clock in the debates. Twice. Talk about a lightweight!


***I think there is more to "Dubyuh" Bush than you may have seen. He is the re-elected Governor of the second most populous state in the nation, one with diverse demographic groups that all support him in greater measure than liberal media stereotypes allow. He is surrounded with some of the most brilliant military and financial minds in the world, and is not so egocentric that he takes credit for their thinking (like a certain sitting President I could name). He has stifled the extremist wing of the GOP and is leading it in the general direction the nation needs to go. The Party is following him gladly. (This is a far cry from the Days of Bob Dole! Talk about a loser!)

And by the way, George Bush made better grades than Al Gore. And for that matter, had higher SAT scores than the supposed intellectual, Bill Bradley.

As for the other candidates, they really have proven to matter very little.


***For what it's worth, I would actually prefer to have the tickets turned upside down so that the nation could choose between Cheney and Lieberman. I'd really prefer a LIBERTARIAN. But I'll take what I can get.

(EDIT: And I do appreciate the points you've made about the environment. I disagree with the Gun Control advocates. Facts and common sense are against them.)



To Juntel:

You raise a lot of points. Without being too picky, let me first point out that the USA is not a "capitalist democracy." We are a Republic. The distinction is actually important. We tend to use "democracy" and "republic" interchangably, but we really shouldn't. (I do it, too.)


***"Humanism" does not need to be "grafted" into this system of government. Such things were debated by the Founders, and they concluded that it was folly and peril to attempt it. I agree with them.

Your statement presupposes that it is more humane to use the power of government to redistribute wealth to make life more fair. That is an incorrect presumption. In the short term, for a generation, or two, or even three, you might get away with it. But the power you have given government to do these things will INEVITABLY be used or usurped by the corrupt and the treacherous. The Founders were thinking of Posterity, forever perhaps, not just for the People today. We must be fair to future generations as well, lifting them as high as we can and encumbering them as little as we may.

But this form of government is only as good as the governed. As bmilder pointed out, fewer and fewer even bother to vote. Many of the Founders pointed out that our Constitution was only fit for the governance of a moral people and none other.

I have been poor (desperately poor!) and I know what a struggle it is. But it would be wrong of me to demand Bill Gates money at the end of a gun. And that is what I would be doing if I voted to raise his taxes so I could get some of it. I DON'T WANT IT! And neither should anyone else.

Bill Gates ought to give as much of his fortune to needy charities and scholarships as he can afford. But if I make him do it, with the power and might of the United States Government behind me, I am a thief.

The power to tax is the power to destroy. If we tax the rights of property over our land and our income, then we diminish those rights. What started as a "never more than 2% tax on the income of the wealthiest" has become a monster that can eat half of a family's income. We are destroying the capital that fuels the general welfare.


***Affirmative Action has nothing to do with my absolute terror of Socialism. I'm rather soft on that subject, having grown up with, and living near, African Americans most of my life. Affirmative Action is a system of racial quotas by any other name. Yet, it was better than the alternative, which was to permit institutional racism to live on undiminished. And nothing better was suggested. I hope that the day will come when no one thinks it necessary.

To Gilthalion:

"Your statement presupposes that it is more humane to use the power of government to redistribute wealth to make life more fair"

Let me first point out that I made no such kind of statement.
I was asking you the question for you to expand on your opinions, and also I wanted to separate this socialism/communism allusion that is too easily brought forward by rightwingers to scare away people that would have "liberal" tendencies... And since when is liberalism so devilish anyway! The McCarthy era is over, isn't it?

Do I think it is "more humane to use the power of government to redistribute wealth to make life more fair"?
Well, we had a poet here in Quebec (Felix Leclerc) who said "the best way to kill a man is to pay him for doing nothing". I don't disagree totally with that.
But redistributing wealth can be done in other ways, by preventive measures (more money to schools, better treatment for teachers, preventing idiotic religious zealots from messing with science curicula in schools), some direct ones (financial aid for medical treatment for poorer people, financial aid for higher education for poorer people, etc)

"Bill Gates ought to give as much of his fortune to needy charities and scholarships as he can afford. But if I make him do it, with the power and might of the United States Government behind me, I am a thief."

Mmmm... As a matter of fact, he does both.
If Mr.Gates thought that the taxes he pays were enough already paying for helping the poor, then he wouldn't be giving away all those other millions/billions to charity. Ditto Mr.Turner.

When taxing rich people, the gov'ment isn't steeling. That money these rich people got, they got it mostly by stepping on "littler" people... but that ain't illegal still.
So the redistribution can be a LOT like affirmative action: making things more fair, more right, in a society where inequalities are a common and normal by-product of the money-making industries, whose sole purpose is to get more with less people to pay.

So it's not a question of giving people money they didn't own: it's giving them back a bit of the marrow they've been sucked of.

Not much time here got to go to work shortly...

juntel:
I can see that we are approaching the subject matter from diametrically oppossed viewpoints and systems of belief.

This colors our perceptions and makes it difficult to see things as the other does.

Your posts, again, DO presuppose that it is humane to redistribute wealth through the government.

It doesn't matter how you do it, individually or institutionally. When you create a government that has the power to redistribute capital, however clever or kind you mean to be in doing so, you have created a government that controls capital, and inevitably, destroys it. That is a great lesson of human history. Government really is like the One Ring.

Aside: The reason the One Ring is an element of the story that has such great resonance with the readers, is that it is a symbol archetypical of some part of reality. Namely: the inevitable corruption of power.

There is nothing new under the sun. Government is Power and Power corrupts. A Little Government, under the People's thumb, is less dangerous than People under a Big Government's thumb. Both will fall prey to evil. Americans have chosen to hope the People will "Trust in God" rather than in Government.

But things change. I fear the American Experiment will fail because we are, as a People, losing that perspective.


***
I wish I had more time, but I've absolutely got to run!

I don't think unkindly of folk who haven't learned this, for many are Good People, doing the best they know how to remedy the Evil of the Present. But Government is a Perpetual Instituion, and so we must keep it Little for the sake of Posterity.

Like the One Ring, Big Government gives us the easy answer, but in the end, would consume us. We are fated to take the long hard Quest together, my friend. We dare not use this thing.

One thing I don't think I can agree in your One Ring analogy...

The main reason why Big Government could get corrupt is because of the same greed that motivates the corrupted minds of big corporations, which anyways have their own ways to influence/lobby the Big Gov. In the pure Little Gov way, those corporations are much more free to act/misact.
The difference is that in the Big(ger) Gov way, at least there is the hope that a truer democracy could fight corruption in that Big(ger) Gov... but of course in a 2-way/2-party-only system, that ain't easy.

The Big Gov is only an "easy answer" IF people don't care anymore WHO elects that Big Gov, ie the PEOPLE itself, for the PEOPLE itself.

But I won't expand more.
I'll let you come back from work.

(I haven't heard your LotR readings yet, but anduin tells me good things about them! I'll go read it when I get the time!)

Thanks to everyone for taking the time to reply. I was primarily interested in your views on the accessibility of political office to ordinary Americans. I did not wish this to degenerate into a left vs. right slanging match, though I suppose it was probably inevitable.

Enough of you have answered to satisfy my curiosity about American attitudes to the forthcoming election, so feel free to condemn each others blinkered opinions (including mine) from now on. Special thanks to Darth Tater for the most concise answer.

I would now like to respond to some of the points made in response to my original request.

To Bmilder:

I accept the point that political organisations will offer financial support to a promising candidate who lacks the required wealth themselves, but surely the person receiving the support would have to `toe the party line` or else the money would soon dry up. I was not thinking of a citizen being supported by special interest groups, but rather someone who wished to stand on a truly independent platform outside of the traditional party system. I still consider that this would be impossible the US for the vast majority of people.

To Gilthalion:

I liked your piece on `President Sam`. But whereas Sam the Mayor of the Shire would be responsible for his own decisions and answerable to no-one but his electorate, I suspect that President Sam would do as he was told and care only for those who funded his campaigns.

To everyone else:

Thanks for replying, I enjoyed reading your posts.

I suppose I should offer a few opinions myself now to deal with the (slightly) off-topic issues which have been raised.

I have to agree with Juntel on the issue of taxation. Much entrepreneurial wealth is not generated by hard work and talent but rather by the exploitation of a legislature which is more concerned with protecting the assets of the wealthy and powerful than it is with acting as an aegis for the citizens it supposedly represents. Do not misunderstand me, I am by no means a socialist, I merely feel that being in control of such resources brings with it a certain responsibilty, a modern day equivalent of `noblesse oblige`, if you will. Since the majority of wealthy people do not appear to agree with this, I would consider taxation to be a legitimate method of redressing the balance.

I can only judge on my experiences of the British legal system, but I have no reason doubt that there are significant differences in other industrialised nations. The amount of tax paid by certain wealthy individuals is a disgrace. To give an example, the Barclay brothers, two figures well-known in British financial circles, have combined assets in excess of £550 million (roughly $850 million) but only pay several hundred pounds in tax per annum. I pay more than this, yet they probably earn more in an hour than I earn in a year. I would like to quote Anacharsis at this point,

"Written laws are like spider`s webs: they will catch, it is true, the weak and poor, but will be torn in pieces by the rich and powerful."

This sums up fairly neatly, in my opinion, the relationship between the law and politics.

On the other hand, I have to agree with Gilthalion on the subject of the debasing nature of power on whomsoever wields it. Socialism as a political ideology has proved to be as morally bankrupt as capitalism. I think it likely that an alternative `Third Way` would be no better. The `New Labour` regime currently ruling the UK has attempted such a marriage of capitalist economics and concern for social welfare. Nothing of note has been achieved to date and the usual stories of self-interested abuse of power abound.

I think that we should expect no more from our politicians. Their faults are merely our own magnified by the power and responsibility which they hold. I work for the Civil Service, in a department which deals with Social Security Appeals. Every day I come across people who try to squeeze as much welfare as they can out of the Government. This is no different from the political graft which is a fact of life in Westminster, Washington, Moscow, Berlin or any other seat of power you wish to mention. Our own nature acts against us. I should like to finish with another quote which agains aptly sums up my own opinion on this subject.

"Why is it that he who is fit to rule is not worthy to rule, and he who is worthy to rule is not fit to rule?"

(A Japanese proverb)

Apologies for the long post,
Taimar.

Well, let me explain why I am a liberal, and so, although I am from the UK, I support the Democrats in the US. I haven't read through the whole thread thoroughly, so won't be able to take account of all that has been said. Furthermore, I can see a little of the "liberal taboo" in this thread - Reps. have turned "liberal" into a kind of "bad word" that you don't want to describe yourself as. We all know that's why Tony Blair over here is labelling everything as the "forces of conservatism" - because he wants to achieve the same effect with the word "conservative".

First of all, the free speech point. I fail to see how freedom to donate money to political organisations helps freedom of speech. In fact, I believe that it deprives freedom of speech, because that is included in the ultimate right: freedom of thought.

If your opinions are controlled not by a fair judgement of what you think is right but by who has the money to present themselves best to you, then the money-makers are controlling what you think and therefore what you say. Furthermore, elected government is representative, while government by who has the most money is not. A government elected democratically is likely to be far more popular and accountable than one chosen by "whoever has the most cash".

Next: socialism is in the end the most economical way financially! Taxes are the best way to spend your money! Take, for example, a facility such as a swimming pool, which (over here anyway) would be financed by the district council. Would you prefer to contribute something like 50p a month and get a swimming pool you could use? Or would you gain more from putting it into the construction of your own pool in your garden? Very unlikely.

Next, profits cause corruption too. Over here we had the disastrous rail crash off London at Paddington where many people died, caused by a poorly positioned signal. Nothing had been proved, but I'd wager that the rails were far more safe before Baroness Handbag privatised them. Now we have shareholders etc, the emphasis is on profit, and therefore safety will be cut down on as much as possible, hushed up etc, because it makes more money. Whereas state-run services are free of this incentive and, furthermore, are directed by the will of the people.

Freedom of speech is all fine and dandy, but what about wrongful defamation in newspapers? What about people accusing you of fraud and all manner of reputation-slashing things without any fear of retribution? What about (as has happened over here) innocent people being labelled as paedophiles, which results in attacks on their homes? Because we don't have total free speech, such people can sue for defamation (libel). Under true free speech, no can do.

Liberalism gives true freedom. I know you have no free health service. The lack of that, for example, could possibly deprive the very bottom end of society from the fundamental right to life, by making them unable to have proper medical treatment. With no income/child/etc support, the select rich few are free of the burden of tax, but the freedom of the disadvantaged is constrained by having too little money to live a proper life.

BTW, this thread rocks!

Taimar, your conclusions are well thought out. But to understand the differences in the candidates requires an examination of the philosophies that (wittingly or unwittingly) they represent. Juntel did a good job of representing the mindset of the left, represented this time by Al Gore.

All of this is bound up with the issue of Campaign Finance and Free Speech and the schools of thought polarized by this issue.

You are right about President Sam. Partially. My point is that in the American Way, we COUNT ON corruption and competition. "He may be a crook, but he's OUR crook," is the notion of much of the electorate on any given day. If they go too far, we thrust them out, or part-way out, and give the other guys a chance. Until they go too far.

We have long been cynical and distrustful of government and of those who desire to govern. It is the entire philosophical basis of our system. In this age of prosperity, we just don't care as much. Let hard times hit, and watch the interest become white hot!

For what it's worth, I once ran for the state legislature as an Independent. I was talked into running at the last instant (in those days I was vain, indeed). I had virtually no money and had to run a grass roots campaign six weeks before the election. Naturally, I lost. MORAL: if you have little money, start early.

I raised a few thousand dollars, bought a few ads, a lot of signs, and many flyers. I went door to door, made speeches, did interviews.

I won in the precincts I had campaigned hardest in. I got very few votes in the precincts I abandoned. (Big surprise!) If I had more time, and a slightly more favorable district, I might be in Montgomery today. (And in Washington tomorrow, then Brussels, then THE WORLD! Bwah hah hah ha ha ha!)

All of this seems to confirm your point. But I drew from my experience not that a poor man can't make it in politics, but that HE JUST HAS TO WORK SMARTER AND HARDER.

I had virtually no name recognition. My adversary was a man of long public service with a political machine behind him. The folks who voted for me were wildly enthusiastic. Those who voted against me did not know me. And he took me seriously and mounted a strong, well-funded campaign. I should have started earlier and not conceded any precincts to my opponent. (Rotton Burroughs you would call them over there, still, I should have made an effort!)

Having risen from a humble post in a backwater state legislature, President Gilthalion, like President Sam, would have to listen when the special interests most aligned with his philosophy spoke. But he should be President for ALL the people, and uphold the Constitution (and the American Way) rather than subvert it. If that means nipping at the hand that feeds you, so be it.

To conclude before Lunch Hour is over (my last post of the day on this thread), and in part to answer juntel's examination of the nature of the corruption , the solution to the issue of Campaign Finance Reform is this (IMHO):

FORBID ALL CONTRIBUTIONS EXCEPT FROM VOTERS AND REQUIRE INSTANT DISCLOSURE.

This would make it easier for the poor but capable hobbit to rise to the station his friends and neighbors desire. It would eliminate the corruption of Big Business, Big Labor, and Big Special Interests in our Elections. It would let us see who is supporting whom. And it would not abridge our rights of free speech in the political process.

And let any Robber Baron who would grind the faces of the poor beware the wrath of Sam Gamgee! His government should be strong enough to deal with lawbreakers after the fact, but not so strong as to preclude their activities.