by Ben Naude

Created on: January 16, 2008   Last Updated: March 19, 2008

Having dreams and visions are extremely important - being able to see what is wrong with an establishment even more so. But that it is never enough. What the candidates are not clearly explaining is what are the things that are right at this stage, the things that they will built upon further.

I suppose that is part of what is plaguing the political system, the thing that it isn't really about bettering America, it is much more about who has the best new vision and are most convincing of it - and who is going to crush who. Whether the vision are actually doable is besides the point. What is the bottom line of everything that they are saying? How are they going to ensure that the constitution are honored?

I am not an American Citizen and maybe I shouldn't therefore even voice my opinion. Still, some things within the American Political System isn't so much about America as it is about the nature of the modern human.

If there is really so much problems in Washington and that justifies simply changing everything there, shouldn't that reasoning be aplied everywhere - for instance, if there is problems with the whole system of how politicians or presidents are elected, shouldn't that system just be changed as well? Funny, since no candidate ever says something about the system of electing a president (for instance, the fact that it is only rich people that will ever be able to run for president).

OK, some things are difficult to change and you need to pick your fights. But that reasoning kinds of go against all of the other statements of how they will implement, no matter what, the needed change (I'm still not sure exactly what that needed change is).

Both of the candidates sees that some change is needed - not difficult to spot, since 99% of the time things need to change. There is a huge difference between realizing that change is needed and actually knowing how to go about implementing measures to achieve the desired outcome. Simply realizing something is wrong and then just removing the whole thing leave you with exactly what?

For instance - take Iraq. Yes, change was needed. Saddam was bad. But what happened when he was simply removed - a country and a nation simply collapsed since he was the only thing that kept it all going.

Maybe someone should, for once, just think about the larger American system and ponder for a while if primaries and all that is serving the common interest of all Americans.

Both candidates say they will change Washington - what does that mean exactly? How what is what they are envisioning going to better America instead of just changing it? Because in the end, they will have a maximum of 8 years after which someone else will come along and again, bring the 'needed' change. Maybe if instead of simply changing, they should acknowledge that a lot of great work has been done over the years and rather seek to constructively built upon it.

Learn more about this author, Ben Naude.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.