Third Party Candidate Debate - Revolution vs. Reformation

A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues.
-Theodore Roosevelt

The room was small, not all the chairs were filled, and the signs were home-made. But the air was thick with fervor. Those who did fill the chairs were more than likely eager to hear something different than the Obama/McCain rhetoric. (It's all a blur to me now -- I can't pick out who's who anymore.)

And in light of all the finger-pointing that happened during last night's presidential debate, I feel that the third party debate was a little more dignified. There was less smooth-talking and more passionate blundering. There was more substance, despite the abundance of mistakes. In short, it didn't trigger my gag reflexes.

In some ways, I am thankful that there are third party candidates running. I would like to say that it's a trademark of our American heritage of freedom to see so many views represented in one room. The sad thing is, however, that it's a remarkable achievement if one of these candidates can even make it onto a ballot.

Despite my appreciation for different views, I still found myself a little worn down by political rhetoric and, in my opinion, unrealistic ideals... basically there was some mumbo jumbo polluting the air, topped off by a little Kumbaya speech. One of the candidates present (though actually the VP candidate) I couldn't completely write-off, however. And this candidate, thankfully, received the most applause during the whole evening. My friend Josh gives his take on the evening in his blog. As he says, the constitutionalist candidate basically articulated that the federal government is "a bloated entity that has overstepped its bounds of authority, and that the vast majority of problems it causes could be almost immediately remedied by returning to a 'Constitutional' Federal Government."

People feel the weight of corruption, even if they can't rightly point fingers at the source. (Though obviously McCain and Obama are experts at this.) I suppose it's part of the tension of living in a fallen world and yearning for something good. You never hear presidential candidates admitting this, however. Instead, they promise real change using revolutionary tactics. They are going to start something new, risking the very same mistakes we've always made in the past. I just fear that revolutionary approaches like the one that the socialist party offers, more often than not, create a model for a "Nanny government."

Yes, people are ready for change. We've seen what "doesn't work." But haven't we already changed enough? Have we not veered from the original intent? Shouldn't we look back at the past and discover what has worked? There is always room for change, but I don't think we understand the dangers of overturning a system. That's why I lean most heavily toward the constitutionalist approach.

To me, revolutionary tactics often fail to recognize that people are the problem, not the system. Power and money is a driving force -- it motivates some of the most hideous acts. Reformation recognizes that we need to reevaluate our motives and ideas, take the bull by the horns and re-commit ourselves to a standard.

As long as power and money are a driving force behind politics, we might always be running in these circles. I don't know about you, but I feel a little dizzy.