[this started out as a response to the comments thread on sam's monday post, but turned into something of a sermon. since i haven't posted in so long, i thought i'd share...]

i think you're right, sam, in that the human factor inherently involved in any political system debilitates it from the very start. however, i don't think that political centrism and patchwork checks and balances are the solution. political extremism, if carefully devised, could certainly work. after all, a good idea is a good idea, and there's no reason to think that pacifying the whims of less intelligent (or less involved) people will steer a good idea in the right direction. smart people in the right state of mind (and, i suppose, given enough time) are capable of solving nearly any problem. people invented god and then killed him; discovered the universe and then mapped it; stumbled upon the atom and then harnessed its incredible power. while i think that seth's point about man not being able to create something as complex as a living organism (and the ensuing analogy to government) is very good, i don't think it's necessarily right.

though it's certainly true that man could not 'dream up' something as complex as a living organism, i think judging from recent leaps in scientific progress it is rather easy to imagine him ably mimicking such creation.

i don't see why the same logic can't be applied to political systems. the only way we will be able to devise a system that will work is if we look hard at the natural systems already in place (biological, ecological, and sociological systems), at everything we've learned about human nature and interaction (think neitzsche, arendt), and at the history of the last three thousand years of human political experimentation.

i'm not saying that it will be easy, or that we will be successful in the forseeable future. i am only suggesting that it is possible for human beings to devise a system that will work. we have to start with virtuous ideals and then apply the sum total of history and human wisdom. and once we've found a formula that we think will work we have to apply it with the force and drive of dogmatic extremism, shunning centrism and pacifism.

the reason american democracy was called the 'great experiment' is that the founding fathers decided to try a new system that they had come up with. it was unlike anything that had ever been tried before. yet they were confident in it because they had started with virtuous ideas (human rights. life. liberty. the pursuit of property / happiness.), and applied the wisdom they had gained after years under oppressive monarchies and ineffectual parliaments. they implemented the broadest framework of safeguards and caveats they could imagine, with the hope of future progress and future relevance. and, as we can see, they did a remarkable job. america is by far the most brilliantly successful political experiment ever undertaken.

that, however, should not be reason to prevent us from calling into question whether it is still working today. as seen on the pages of this post, in our readers' comments, and in the climate of dissent in our current political culture, a growing majority of americans are beginning to seriously doubt whether the system is still functioning in the best interest of its citizens. i (as you well know) personally think that it isn't. and yet i am not maligning the founding fathers! they were brilliant and i can only hope that men and women of our generation even have the intellectual curiosity to seek their breed of brilliance! the demise of american democracy is not a testament to the founders' incompetence, but rather their lack of clairvoyance. it is hard to believe they could have imagined the state of the human condition today. egalitarianism, widespread human rights, universal suffrage. these are not things they thought were on the horizon. the progress achieved in human morality and compassion and liberalism is astonishing. i don't think that our current social climate--what is commonly perceived as the decline of human integrity--is that at all. jon stewart, for instance, constantly makes the hugely valid point that we don't have slaves anymore! we're running around the world demanding fairness and equality and justice and human freedom! we've come a long way.

however, as a result, there has been a shift from one race trying to control another, to everyone trying to control everyone else. people seek money and power and that's it. fortunately it's not about race anymore, but now it's just about the rich and powerful vying for control of the poor and the weak. unfortunately, that is not the situation the founders were preparing for. their safeguards were against tyrannies of ideas, tyrannies of religion. the founders were rich and powerful! why should they have thought to safeguard against the rich and powerful??

so where does that leave us? i think we're left in a state of decline. we're left with a citizenry clinging to outdated ideas for reasons of nostalgia and indolence. we hold on to the founding fathers so tightly because we're afraid of trying to come up with something new for ourselves. a new social situation calls for a new social compact. and essentially that is what we need.

now, though it may not be obvious, i'm not crazy. i'm not calling for revolution. frankly, i don't think americans could handle it. i'm merely trying to suggest that the current attitude toward politics and government--the attitude of centrist reform and detente--is counterproductive. when something stops working, tinker with it a little bit. change a few parts. maybe even kick it. but don't pick at it until it's totally unrecognizable and hope that it will work like before, only better. doesn't anyone pay attention to the middle-aged women walking down the street with so much plastic surgery it looks as though at any moment the sun might beat down hard enough to actually melt their faces off? they're ugly! they tried too hard and what did they get? UGLY!

the same applies to government. as i professed so emphatically to sam yesterday, the ultimate reason for this post, and my final response to seth's comment mentioned above [yea, i know, sorry it's taken so long]:: we must not be defeatists! defeatism is the worst kind of laziness and cowardice. it is the ultimate limiter of human ingenuity. why shouldn't we think that we can come up with a system that will work? frankly, i know that we can. we have to be willing to start with good ideals, incorporate the things history has taught us, and take a stand. our politicians today are too weak and yellow to do that. money and power is more important to them than america idealized.

be brave enough to seek great things. otherwise you're forever doomed to the mediocrity we're seething in, well-deserved though it may be.