Far be it from me to second guess some of the greatest minds of the 18th century, but I seriously doubt the Founding Fathers ever envisioned their newly formed nation to, one day, be populated by the likes of us today. And yes, I am including yours truly in that acid appraisal. For regardless of our roots, we as a nation have grown into a materialistic and politically hedonistic society.

That hard moral and honest enduring man and woman of the earth they started out with as the building blocks of this nation in 1776, has evolved into something else entirely. And in the shadow of a very critical history making presidential election on the horizon, we need to take stock of our own qualifications as citizens, as to motivations and decision-making justifications. What moves us and why do we do the things we do?

There is an old saying that states: people tend to regard as friends, those who hate the same people they do, or better yet, defined by the age-old parable” the enemy of my enemy is my friend.”

In many ways, this is more than an apt description of how we have come to vote for our leaders in the last 50 years. In other words, we have evolved from a sane constitutionally minded people, toward an insane citizen mob ruled by - blind-toxic politics.

By adhering to these habits and policies, we have allowed ourselves to elect a critically flawed, intellectually challenged Constitutional destructor to the presidential office - twice. An individual who has led us into a totally unnecessary war against a nation that did not attack us, and to in the bargain we allowed him to give the cream of our nation's hard earned surplus earnings, to the already wealthiest 2.0 percent of the country. But despite all of his spectacular failures and the horrendous loss of life his decisions have entailed, - both American and foreign, there are still people within the country, normal hard working church going citizens, who continue to sing his praise.

When it comes to presidential politics, Americans' do not like to - THINK. They prefer instead to cheer for one side or the other as in a football game, which means they simply take sides with their judgment governed by their personal prejudices. This effect I can only describe as - mindless blind toxic patriotism.

Therefore, looking back upon a reflection of who and what we have become, one is forced to ask - who are we as a people and how did we get this way? And most important, can we ever recover to our earlier glory and promise as a people and a nation?

Humans and People - Two Different Species

In the world of science we speak of the Actual and the Ideal: one is Real and the other Hypothetical-Theoretical Perfection. In some ways it can be said that - Humans are what People are supposed to be, but People are what Humans are. And in that that unflattering light, we can easily uncover the end product as we all know by the daily headlines and news videos - is not a pretty picture. In point of fact - it's damn frightening.

So let us for a moment look upon some of our irrational and contradictory actions, both as individuals and as a supposedly united people:

On one hand - as Conservatives:

We - want to stop all abortions, but once the unwanted child is born - We want nothing to do with its care and economic upkeep if the birth mother is not willing or able to do so on her own.

We - are against Social Security for Low Income citizens who never earned enough to save for their retirement or early disability. But we are also against employers being mandated to pay a Living Wage that would allow these same Low Income citizens the ability to do so.

We - don't want the excess taxing of the income of highly paid or outright wealthy citizens, for we believe that is the equivalent of - taxing success. But we have no moral qualms of excessively taxing the Low Income citizenry because we believe that they are an expensive bourdon just by their numbers and, therefore, should be forced to pay for themselves.

We - are against Welfare Subsidies for the Working Poor citizen because we believe such subsidies smack of Socialism, but we are also against state mandated Minimum Wage Laws.

We - are against any form of Unionized Wage Contracts, but want no restriction on excessive CEO Contracts and Benefit Packages.

We - respect all viewpoints and religions - as long as they are Christian

Then on the other political hand - as Liberals:

We - have no problem with massive tried and failed Social Programs, regardless of how expensive they are to continually fund - with no positive results forthcoming. But we disapprove of high cost Military or Space Projects - that work.

We - are for Gun Control, but demand that our Criminal Control Enforcement Laws and Officers be in all circumstances, regardless of relative effectiveness - color and culturally blind as well as potential offender profile free.

We - demand Total Freedom of Speech for Minorities, no matter how abusive it may be to the sensitivities of long held community standards. But in the land of Rule of the Majority, we demand Politically Correct Restrictions on Majorities of their publicly expressed feelings of outrage.

We - advocate the vigorous prosecution of vicious criminals - but we believe the prosecution and punishment handed out should be on a sliding scale that favors Minorities over Whites.

We - firmly believe that, no matter how clear-cut or vicious the crime, there can never be fair prosecution of Minorities by the Majority that will not be tainted by racial or cultural bias.

.We - tolerate all viewpoints and religions - as long as the viewpoint and philosophies they express reflect ours and are - Politically Correct.

So you see dear readers it is We the People who are the problem with the American Political System, - not the politicians. It is We the People who demand via our sacred Right to Vote that elected politicians govern by carrying out, administratively, our personal prejudices be they cultural, racial or religious. And in so doing, We the People culture a breed of professional liars' who do not carry out our national dictates, but choose instead to lay their true alliances with the corporate world and power-brokers who finance their long and very profitable stays in office. Yes, in the final analysis, the critical problem with American Democracy rests, not with the politicians, but squarely on the shoulders of - We the People.

Hypothetical Conversations Across the Congressional Isle

In playwright George Bernard Shaw's epic and probably best play, "Man and Superman", brilliant yet flawed characters exchange equally complex and compelling ideas. In Act III, a terrific debate takes place between the legendary Don Juan and the Devil, providing one of the most intellectually stimulating conversations in theatrical history. In many ways, I thought this situation and exchange parables the present American political scene in many ways.

Therefore, I have put together, rather than a debate, a sort of cross interview between the parties in this election year. For the purpose of this short and contrived discussion, I have selected (invented) 'ghost' representatives for the protagonists in the upcoming U.S. presidential election.

The Moderator - chosen for this discussion is a politically non-partisan newsperson, which will set in place a completely fair and impartial discussion environment. However, since he or she does not as yet exist on any of the major networks, I had to invent a substitute for this particular function at this place in time.

Moderator: "Is Barack Obama qualified to become the President of the United States of America?"

Liberal: "It doesn't matter, he is the first Black to get this far and, in this case, that should be enough."

Moderator: "But what about the overall pressing needs of the country which may require far more experience than your man has?"

Liberal: "The pressing emotional needs of Black people to feel that they can win are, at the moment, more important than the needs of the country as a whole. They'll survive."

Conservative (interrupting): "Excuse me, but you had a candidate who was fully qualified, and who represented the first of her sex to managed to get this far, Hillary Clinton. She was a minority. Why didn't you back her?"

Liberal (pointedly ignoring him, choosing instead to direct his reply to the Moderator)): "Yes, she was qualified, but Obama was more qualified because he was Black. And beside, even though she was a woman, she was White. And at this historic moment, White isn't as important"

Moderator: "I am sorry, but time is short and I ask the questions not either of you.. You only respond to the questions. Now, about that last Hillary Clinton response, ...say what?" She's not qualified because she was White?"

Liberal: "You have misunderstood my response and taken it out of context. It was not because she was so much ...White, as it was that Obama was Blacker. You see, there is a distinction there - if you know how to look for it, and you would if you were Black. Do you understand me now?"

With no detectable emotional expression from that response, the Moderator turns to the Conservative.

Moderator: "Do you really believe that a 72 year old man who has had three bouts of cancer, and a wife who less than three years ago suffered a stroke, are the best governing couple to place at the seat of the most powerful government in the world?

Conservative: "Hell yes! I think that if I have to take a blind chance, that's a much better choice than a candidate who has a first name that is a mystery to everyone, a second name that is downright scary to just about anyone at this particular time in history, and a last name that virtually shouts out - Black! And to boot, he's a flaming Liberal with suspected Muslim leanings! And if later on we find all of that to be true, all-the better.

Moderator: "Tell me, don't you find John McCain's casual little ditty - "bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" - just a bit worrying as to his possible motivational state of decision making mind as President of the United States?

Conservative: "Hell yeah! But only if I though he'd really do it."

Moderator: "And you don't think he'd really do it under any circumstances?

Conservative: "Of course not, the man's not crazy! What he said was just a scare tactic to get the Iranians into a position where they would deal and negotiate more honestly than they have to date."

Moderator: "And if they don't?"

Conservative: "That's an unfair Left Wing question, which we know you put out to try and paint our man, McCain, as some sort of throwback John Wayne type military loony. Well that old ploy won't work!"

Now turning back to the Liberal, his face in quizzical repose as he digests the previous response, he poses another question:

Moderator: "Would Barack Obama ever recommend the preemptive bombing of Iran, or any other state, that was actively attempting to develop a nuclear weapon?"

Liberal: "Not before the election! But after that, everything's on the table."

Moderator: "Your man has heralded himself as one of the few who voted against the Iraq War, even in the light of the overwhelming evidence displayed by the Bush administration and the intelligence services. The Senate vote was Democrats 29-21 in favor, and Republicans 48-1 in favor. The final vote of 77-23 in favor means that 77 percent of the total senate voted for the war, of which 38 percent constituted members of his own party, the Democrats. Therefore, I am moved to ask on behalf of the American people, looking at the same evidence that everyone else was given, how did he, an inexperienced senator at the time, know what these highly experienced senators didn't know?

Liberal: "He just did!"

Moderator: "But what we need to know, in fact what we must know in order to evaluate him as Commander in Chief material, just how he make his decision. Did he consult more knowledgeable members of the Senate? Did he have an inside or outside private intelligence source? Did he use a Ouija board? Did he employ some hidden precognition talent he may have? How did he make his decision? How did he know what the other more experienced senators didn't?

Liberal: "He just did, that's all. Besides, we now know that the Bush administration cooked the intelligence books and cherry picked what they let the Senate see."

Moderator: "Yes, I'll give you that. But how did Senator Obama know it was a phony case? It could just as well have been the real thing. What if it had been the real thing and the senator's vote had been the deciding one preventing us from going to war in time?"

Liberal: " "But it wasn't and I know what you're trying to do. You're trying to intimate that he would have been against the war in any circumstance, and simply voted against the Iraq War out of some Peacenik standing. Right? But I'm not going to give you that kind of ammunition to use against him. So let's stop beating a dead horse! Okay!"

Moderator: "One final point I'd like to address, and that is on the matter of Socxial Security. As I am certain you are both aware of, the Social Security Trust Fund is scheduled to be running in the red by 2020, or even as soon as 2012 according to some sources. Many critics refer to the trustfund as a Ponzi scheme, but the GAO has confirmed that the federal government has been borrowing since from the fund since 1942, for various projects such as World War ll, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, and even the Iraq War in its early stages. They have also borrowed heavily to address a large number of federal government budgetary shortfalls over the years, as well as various politically motivated social programs. It is the estimate of the GAO, that this borrowing over a period of some 60 odd years, indebted the federal government to the Social Security Trust Fund to the tune of - $ 3.4 Trillion dollars.

My question to the two of you is a simple and straigthforward query, if not of necessity a lengthy one. The federal government has decided to bailout a number of private financial institutions who have made a calamity of bad loans and investments, in the amount of - $700 Billion dollars, Supposedly this was for the good of the country.

In the light of this historically incredible financial gift to bad and, sometimes, fraudulent management, would either political party be willing to put forward a measure in Congress to repay to the Social Security Trust Fund - at least an equivalent amount to bring it up to solvency - for the good of the American people?

You know what I am suggesting, of course, a sort of - in for a penny in for a pound rational.

Thirty three seconds long elapse without a single verbal response from either side.

Moderator: "Well I'll take the silence as an indication that the two sides are in agreement on this point. So thank you both for participating in this highly informative brief discussion.. This discussion is over!"

So dear readers, one side offers 'Maverick' - Change we're skeptical of, and the other, 'Inexperienced - Change we can believe in.' But it appears that in the end, the status that will prevail is born of the old axiom: The more things change, the more they remain the same.

So What's Next?

Of those who will actually go out and vote on Election Day, 25 percent will more than likely vote for the Black guy because he is Black, while another 25 percent will vote for the White guy because he's White. 32 percent will vote strict party line - no matter what, which leaves that lone 18 percent of Independent Voters. What will they do?

Then of course, there's Sen. Hilary Clinton standing in the wings, patiently waiting to be called on stage - four years from now. For she and her loyal 16-24 million supporters know with almost complete certainty, that the present mess in the American Economic system, the Middle East and the Energy Crisis, won't go away or subside to aa manageable degree in - four years.

She knows the high probability that we will still be at war, somewhere in the Middle East, at that time. And most of all she knows that the American public is fickle when it comes to political heroes of the moment, and will probably evolve as follows:.

A McCain win - Unless some miracle comes about, his presidency will be crushed under the wheels of this incredible and financially overwhelming economic disaster now brewing. He may,, be able to wrest some degree of battlefront humility from any crisis occurring in the Middle East during his tenure. But more than likely, his age and health will limit him to one term in office.

An Obama win - If he is to win at all, he must do so on this first outing, for there will be no second try for him. He is not likely to ever again get the massive youth and computer generated monetary support that has sustained his campaign, nor another likely push from a timely economic catastrophe. For youth have a demonstrated tendency to lose interest in heroes quickly, and no economy can remain this devastated for four years. So even with an adept and knowledgeable vice president, you can bet Obama will be praying that nothing major takes place in the Middle East - or anywhere else in the world - during his first term tenure.

On the other hand, Hillary Clinton knows by political instinct, that whomever wins in the present global arena will be fighting to remain in office in four years - against a more than likely hostile public: one that will not forget the promises made the previous four years ago. So she waits patiently knowing that, barring an accident of health, - her time will come again!

In any case my fellow Americans, no matter who wins in November, we're in for one hell of a ride - before and after the election!

Meanwhile, from their resting places our Founding Fathers are looking on in awe, for they simply do not believe what has happened to their dream - America! And most certainly these Noble spirits query among themselves - who the hell are these wildly irrational people who dare to call themselves - Americans'?

Your comments - The voices of our readers

This is not so crazy and very similar to the solution taken by several Scandinavian countries during a similar crisis. Why not look at what Japan did and what the Scandinavians did in similar circumstances. Japan's market has still lost 75% of it's value 18 years later after following a course just like the one proposed by the Bush administration during their credit crisis, while our Northern European friends took over the banks who had acted poorly and gave the assets to tax payers. This actually led to a quick recovery in which the tax payers PROFITED! The politicians are using the old "you must act now" scare technique of shifty salesmen. This administration is going for the triple crown of lie-based legislation. Remember authorization for Iraq? Remember the tax cut for the rich? King George has again gone before Congress and demanded that the small taxpayer spend $700 Billion to bail out his rich corporate friends who screwed up. RT, Bronx, NY My god what a mess.  How could this happen to us.  We were such a great country.  This time I can't argue with anything you have stated.  Its all true.  And you are absolutely right. We did this to ourselves. We let it happen to us with our eyes wide open.  This is a nightmare in thr daylight. G. Crowley, Nutley, NJ