In a letter to Gilbert Elliott, March 10th, 1751, David Hume wrote
"I have often thought that the best way of composing a Dialogue, wou'd be for two Persons that are of different Opinions about any Question of Importance, to write alternately the different parts of the Discourse, & reply to each other."
Your post shows Hume's wisdom.
You disapprove of my description (#msg-6311737) of an election process that is free of political parties. In opposition, you say, "I would have no idea what the final selected candidates stood for or were committed to enacting". And, there, Hap, you hit the "crux of the matter".
You listed three sets of objectives you consider it imperative our elected officials try to reach. The implication is that you will vote for candidates who support these goals and will not vote for candidates who do not support these goals. You are not alone in having that attitude. It's the central theme of every election for every member of the electorate.
... and that's what makes us so vulnerable.
We are sure we are right, so we support people people who say what we want to hear ... even when we know from bitter experience that we're being conned. Why are the most common post-election complaints those about unfulfilled campaign pledges? Because the people who make the pledges are accomplished liars. Their political existence depends on their ability to make you believe they're on your side.
The three sets of objectives you listed are important, not only to you, but to many other people as well. In terms of our discussion, they are important because they allow us to look at two points:
1) By obsessing over these points, we ignore the rest of what our congress is doing. The 109th Congress (2005-2006) has considered or is considering thousands of bills. You can find them at:
Not all of them are as frivolous as they first appear and virtually every one of them ends with that catch-all "... and for other purposes." which allows the attachment of special-interest "riders". Among those bills are many that affect our people and our nation. Do you know how your elected representative, who you voted for because (s)he said (s)he favored goals you favor, will vote on these bills? Do you know how and when (s)he'll attach riders? Or for what purpose? Or how (s)he'll vote on the riders of other representatives?
No, of course not.
What do you know?
You know the name your representative is using, you know the party that sponsors him (or her), and you know your representative lacks integrity because the system guarantees it. Beyond that, you know nothing. You have no idea which donor bought your representative's vote on what issue. How else do you think we have a law that allows a bank to hold your money for several days ... until your check "clears" ... in an era of instantaneous electronic funds transfer?
It is not the headline issues that are destroying our nation. It is the thousands of bits and pieces our political parties are selling off to enhance their positions of power. They keep our minds occupied with the headline issues while they steal our nation from under us.
2) When you say, "I would have no idea what the final selected candidates stood for or were committed to enacting", the critical word is the "I". That suggests that your judgement is the only one that matters. I'm sure it is for you, but is it for the rest of the nation?
Our Constitution established our nation as a republic ... a nation in which the supreme power rests in all the citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives elected by them. Thus, my opinion is as important as yours, and neither of our opinions is worth any more than those of our compatriots. So, while each of our strongly held opinions are important to us, they are entitled to no more weight in the affairs of our country than those of others.
For my part, I am acutely aware that I do not have access to all the facts that affect decisions made by our representatives. It is my opinion that you have no greater access than I, and, even if you do, it can not be to more than a fraction of the facts that bear on the passage or failure of the thousands of bills before our legislative bodies. We should recognize that our own opinions are fundamentally flawed by lack of knowledge. That's why we should want someone we can trust to study the issues, listen to the advocates (lobbyists) for both sides of the issues, and act in our best interest.
Whatever I may think of global warming, my opinion is meaningless because I lack the scientific background to support it. I don't understand why an acquaintance of mine in the southern hemisphere must heed daily warnings of the risk due to the gap in the ozone layer that, for some reason, concentrates itself below the equator. What I do know is that I don't want my country's future dependent on a flawed political system that will put vested interests ahead of the public interest with regard to the risk of global warming. Instead, I want representatives that can be trusted to protect the public interest.
Obviously, that presents a problem. Out of the three-hundred million people in our country, how can we find those who have the integrity to represent us properly? One thing is absolutely certain ... We're going to have to trust someone, probably someone We've never even heard of? Someone who's views we don't know.
And, that is the crux of the problem.
But why should it be a problem? We routinely trust others, many with our lives. Trusting others to represent our best interest is not risky, but it forces us to recognize that our own view is not always the correct one. We have to accept the fact that thoughtful, honest representatives will not always see things as we see them, and, when they don't, the fault is more likely in us than in them.
However, even knowing our present system is seriously flawed, how do we build a system free of partisanship, a system that puts our people and our nation above petty self-interest and greed, a system that yields representatives we can trust to make sound decisions?
We need the wit to devise a method that honors principle. Once we have that, we have the technological ability to make it real.
In short, then, the three goals mentioned may or may not be the best goals for our nation. Others may well have a set of goals diametrically opposed to those you support. I don't want either one of you to "win". I want representatives I can trust to get the facts, think objectively about them, and reach the best decision for all of us.