Three reactions here, tangentially related to the topic (I think):
-
Andrew L. wrote:Here's a (question-begging) question: is the average American voter too cynical or too idealistic.
I'd say the answer is both.
I think the average U.S. citizen/voter is cynical and idealistic. 'Too' implies a frame of reference. The definitions of that particular reference, and the language those definitions are couched in, are the battleground of modern politics. Of course you know that...excuse the condescension...
-Maybe it's due to my background, but I'm very much under the impression that the election of a black president would trigger something like a civil war. Believe me...there are a lot of people back in my home state that would not think twice about taking up arms and going partisan. Sad, but much more true than most of the kind souls I know can even imagine.
-How do you define legitimate political experience? There are the nuts and bolts of the political process, and there is 'real politicking'. I'm of the opinion that if we are going to support a much-needed serious political change in a positive direction, well, that direction lies in opposition to what we would really define as 'real politicking' experience.
I've always been disturbed by the fact that politics are seen as something only able to be tackled by well-trained professionals, privy to details your average joe shouldn't even dream of having access to. Well, I don't buy that. Politics should be (on Mars, or wherever else things make some sort of sense) the extension of the will of the people. It is nothing more than a series of value-judgements, really. Practical experience with a specific issue on a nuts-and-bolts/direct level would be useful, but not entirely necessary, for a political office. Whom that particular office decides to utilize as advisors, well, of course. But...'political experience'? What does that mean? How to consult with lawyers on how to address PAC banquet gifts? Public oratory skills? 'Moral values'?