it is unfortunate that both major political parties are really two heads of the same coin. they are both corrupt and ineffective. much of what they do is to slander the other party, as if the truth were limited to the one being attacked. my husband used to say, "if you have one finger pointed at me, then you have three fingers pointing back at you."
when republicans point at the democrats and accuse them of, e.g., abuse of power, they are condemning themselves as well, with their own words. nothing can be said about the one that is not true of the other, as well. and, as we all know, two wrongs do not make a right.
political parties are sects that are beholden to one another. they invite corruption. i believe it was James Madison in Federalist 10 or 11 who railed against the party system. right now, it is the party that builds the platform for which it stands; it should be the individual who is running for office -- any office -- who is required to set forth his or her platform. and i don't mean that they should just say, "i'm for the democrats" or "i'm for the republicans." they need to set out detailed statements/explications of their political views. this would of course require thinking and writing; and reading, by the public.
we are all complicit -- we need to fully participate. we cannot afford to be mentally lazy when it comes to electing representatives, and they cannot afford to be mentally and philosophically lazy when it comes to defining their platform. no more adhering to the republicrats; let's see individual accountability and individual participation.
candidates need, for one, to leave religious values out of their platforms. the First Amendment gives us rights that cannot be undone, no matter how much one sect would have their moral standards thrust upon all citizens. this goes for democrats as well as republicans -- one would legislate what goes on in our bedrooms, the other would dare legislate what goes on in the rest of the house.
there is an evil at work here; it is called bureaucracy. untold millions of trees are killed to make the paper behind which politicians hide, the huge mass of paperwork that does naught but obfuscate and misrepresent.
popularity should be exorcised from candidacy; personal traits, such as religious belief, should be kept personal. i look forward to the day when an atheist can openly run for office and actually be elected. we have had atheists in office, but they must behave as though they were caught by the throat of a "don't ask; don't tell" policy. belief in gods should not be a prerequisite for holding office. the Constitution allows for oath or affirmation, and that is all it has to say on the subject. the Bill of Rights works as a check upon government -- the "they shalt nots" that government cannot perpetrate upon its citizenry. too many people mix it up with the ten commandments -- the "thou shalt nots" -- that ought to be obeyed by one and all. this is explicitly forbidden by the First and Ninth Amendments.
it is very difficult to vote in today's climate. one must settle for the lesser of several evils, and then hope that congress is of the opposite persuasion, so that nothing can get done. this is the safest we can ever be, when it comes to enacting legislation. it is simply a total waste of the sapient mind and of a reasonable citizenry.
but at least we get to vote, which is a good thing, as martha stewart would say. how and whether our votes are counted and registered is, of course, another story. practically every election since 2000 has brought up that political bad boy. we remain uncertain as to whether our vote "counts," and this engenders disillusionment in the entire system. and we're back to the beginning of my argument ...