[Riddil]

Aside from the "tools" suggested with the essay, I was more interested in the central conceit, which I understood as the idea that belief structures are shaped by community. It applies not only to the obvious camps of politics and religion, but really every facet of life. Why is it that Europeans abhor American-football, but are soccer fanatics? And yanks love the NFL, but nod-off during a footy match? It's entirely because everyone is so damn passionate about their "home" sport.

Community influence trumps all logic arguments weighing pros and cons of any two different structures. We've proven to both Dems and Reps that actual policy is almost meaningless. Remember that survey that actually reported the "best match" to most Americans ideals were actually Kucinich and R. Paul? Didn't seem to help them very much.

The effect of community so important that I think it casts doubt on every argument anyone uses for or against either party, and their appeal to the greater population. I don't care how intensely my European friends explain the magic of soccer to me... I won't give a lick. (Likewise, my efforts to pass on the passion for NA football have been entirely in vain). In my mind it's not an emotional connection... I can see the common-sense logic clearly indicating NA football is superior. But finally I have to admit that it has nothing to do with logic, and everything to do with community preference and rearing. I actually WANT to enjoy soccer, it'd be more fun to hang out in a pub on soccer-night. But I don't think it'll ever happen, my predisposition is to ingrained.

Sadly, it's the same for our two-party system in the US. It has nothing to do with real merit, simply either parties ability to appeal to that "community" feeling in their constituents. It's why Republicans have adopted the "small town values" mantra. What does it mean? They don't even know, but everyone from small towns FEEL as if they're a part of something bigger, even if the Republican policies contradict the ideals of small-town life.

So, I took a long roundabout way to get back here, but I also wanted to address tw's post. Personally I feel you're being a bit extremist in your views, but ok, I can understand where your ideas come from. But I also think it's a mistake to assume that it's only evil Republicans who can be so vile. Democrats can be just as conniving.

Even though I hated Bill Clinton when he was on office, in retrospect I have to admit overall he did a fine job. I think Hillary would also be a good leader (except I think she has one big flaw... just like Bush Jr. it seems she has unerring faith in her vision of the future, dissenters be damned). Even though I think Hillary would be leagues better than most, I simply could never bring myself to vote for her. Throughout the primaries she showed willingness to do or say anything to give herself an advantage. I can't argue it's not effective, but because I don't believe it's ethical I can't support her.

So even though I couldn't bring myself to vote for her... I have to respect her. She was a master showman, just like her husband. The theme of politics today is to do and say whatever is necessary to get to the leadership position.... McCain with Falwell, Clinton in a black church speaking "southern" slang, etc. It's that same "showman" idea that makes W. Bush dance like a twit every time he attends a photo-op where there's some band. People think it's cute... and being cute is better than being judged on your failed policies.

That's why I say they're all rotten. Get rid of the lot of 'em, and lets elect a bunch of goats to lead the country.

I wonder if there will ever be a day when someone will invent a government which actually focuses more on qualifications and acountability, and less on showmanship and "cuteness".