I could even accept the system as it is, as long as I could make sure the candidates are not tainted by the journey there.

Ok, I agree that either way there has to be some sort of selection process. I just don’t like what that process is doing to the people that pass. The actual trial also becomes a classroom for dirty tricks and corruption.

Another, perhaps more pressing issue, is the commercialization of politics these days. Especially so in the US. Perhaps nullifying that could once again bring balance and saving us from reformation.

As for claiming to know, I know what I do not like, and getting rid of “bugs” in the system is probably easier and safer than proclaiming a whole new system. I am a believer that change has to be slow (even though my patience says differently).

Any other system, where some elite group selects the leader will always lead to the elite group being the actual power. Then the contest is to get into the elite group.

History is full of these kinds of these ‘elite group’ systems. Witness the priests, mullahs, ayatollahs, rabbis, kings, queens, dukes, etc. That’s why I complained about ‘patricians’. Their history forms one of these elite groups,

I believe that this is why all the ‘ideal government’ solutions are BAD. They all purport to ‘know’ when it seems to me that its not possible to ‘know’

Patricians, as you call them, are a problem. Indeed. At least if they are elected on false premisses. A regular brat pack really.

Also, as a European I have a hard time understanding the Kennedy thing. I expected the “mythology” to lose its radiance with time.

The actual phenomena of political inheritance is of course obvious in Sweden too. And who is to blame? Not the people as such but rather those nefarious PARTIES that make it all happen. They’d do anything to justify their existence and to help “their own kind”. Many social scientists have of course already pointed this out. But little is being done to help the situation. Probably because it requires constitutional changes that would question even democracy as such. Personally I agree with what Habermas says on the subject, i.e. e.g. that there is little room for the “Public sphere” in the modern and democratic society:

http://www.zip.com.au/~atho...

But enough ranting about that … bottom line is that it’s a flawed system. And no one has a better one handy.

As for Clinton, I had almost forgotten how much I was complaining about him during his final term. I guess this is full circle.

I say what I always say in times like these, quoting late author Douglas Adams, “Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job”.

I guess I wish for a true man of the people. The real deal. But I am not so sure that it is a good idea to share the ideals of the people. I feel a government should be beyond common people and not on the same level. So out the window with both “patricians” and “commoners” …

I cannot hide that I prefer senior academics in this position. A bit like Plato’s “Republic” then I guess. Educated and worldly old men (women) with nothing left to prove and with the wisdom (and mistakes) of a lifetime. Not the perfect solution either but at least it has got fail-safes.

The problem, as I see it, is that we have been electing members of the ‘patrician’ class. Witness The Bushes, Kennedy, Kerry, etc. Even Clinton aspired to that class. They all share a common history. The same schools, clubs, etc. This means that we are getting closer and closer to ‘electing’ a king.

I hate to imagine what politics would be like today if John Kennedy junior had had political aspirations. By now we would be waiting to see the sex of his children.

So, all in all, a man of the people is the best among bad choices. The alternative is to have a ‘king’. (or queen)

I console myself by saying that it almost doesn’t matter who is elected since I believe that one president will do pretty much what another will do. The president’s bottom line job is to protect the American people. An ‘American Cowboy’ is perfect in that role. Most presidents will rise to that role when the chips are down.