Politics of Insanity
May 10, 2008 by Elizabeth Cable
Over the past couple decades, the American people have seen the incompetence, corruption, and inability to get anything done among the collective group of their elected officials. These elected officials find themselves indebted to lobbyists and corporations who donate to their political campaigns, rather than their constituents, and so they often find it necessary to represent and work for their corporations rather than their constituents. Many Americans these days are probably now wondering, “How do I go about picking a candidate who is competent and able and who is not corrupt, so that I can then vote for them and work for them, so that they can get into office and work for me?”
It is difficult attempting to scrutinize each candidate to try to determine what exactly they are thinking, so I have come up with a better solution to ascertain that the candidate that you elect will work for you, and work hard. For those candidates running for elected office, what the constituents need to do is to all get together, have the candidates in front of them, and then everyone stand back and each throw one dart towards the candidates. I almost can guarantee you that the candidate who receives the most darts will work, and work hard, for his or her constituents. They shan’t want any darts thrown at them again.
But, seriously, friends, there is an incompetence, corruption, and ineffectiveness that seems to be held collectively among our elected officials, with a few exceptions. It also seems to be held, generally, among both of the major political parties. What we, the American people, have essentially been doing these past several decades is swinging back and forth between the Democrats and the Republicans, reverting from one to the other when one does not satisfactorily execute its promises. When we tire of one party, the other party shouts, “Here! We can do all of the things that you want, and more! We shall be a ‘change’ from this other useless party!” But this new party does not deliver on its promises either.
We switch back and forth, finding each party unsatisfactory over and over again, and we expect different results each time the Democrats or each time the Republicans promise to bring different results. Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results is, according to Albert Einstein, the very definition of insanity.
Abandon these false promises. Abandon these politicians of ineffectiveness, incompetence, and corruption. Abandon these two parties, which seem to be growing closer and closer to the other day by day. Become an independent and not loyal to either major party, and vote to empower yourself with the National Initiative for Democracy. The National Initiative for Democracy is a federal ballot initiative that would allow the people to make laws in partnership with their elected officials. Law-making is the central power of government, so, if the people are ever truly going to have power over their government and ensure that it is effective and not under the dominion of two completely corrupt political parties, then they must have the power to make laws. Having this power will allow the people to make laws, such as campaign finance reform, that will limit corruption and the involvement of special interests. These are laws that the politicians will not make themselves because they all got elected because there was no campaign finance reform and other reforms in the corruption of our system. Doing these two things, becoming an Independent and empowering yourself, is the only way that the United States will ever get out of these politics of insanity. Being an Independent can lessen party loyalty, and the National Initiative for Democracy will allow for laws to be made against our corrupt two-party system.
And to go along with becoming an Independent, why not vote independently? If the major Presidential candidates have each put up arguments that resound less with you than the arguments of other less well-known candidates, then why not vote for the other, less well-known candidate instead? Don’t vote on the basis of party. You have no obligation to either major party to vote for them. You have no obligation to the presidential candidate of one party or the other. It is they who are responsible for winning your vote. You should have that mindset.
If the two major parties appear to be corrupt and never get anything done (and they haven’t gotten anything done on any major issues for the past few decades), then you don’t have to vote for either of them. As I said, you have no obligation. In this presidential election, instead of voting for Politics as Usual, why not vote for Ralph Nader (the Independent), Cynthia McKinney (the Green Party candidate), or Mike Gravel (who I hope will be the Libertarian candidate)? Or, of course, you could always write in your own name on the ballot (a favorite suggestion of mine).
My personal choice for President is Former Senator Mike Gravel, because he is the founder and the champion of the National Initiative for Democracy proposal, which will give the power of government back to the people.
So, my friends, to finally directly answer the question “How do I go about picking a candidate who is competent and able and who is not corrupt, so that I can then vote for them and work for them, so that they can get into office and work for me?” My answer is: vote and work for the empowerment of yourself.






I’m not sure if the politics of corruption can be ended by one politician or party, whether it be Gravel, Obama or Libertarians. I think the true solution is to rewrite one of the world’s oldest written constitutions and give more rights back to state and local governments. Let the federal government concern itself with war, diplomacy, and issues of gross morality (making sure that individuals don’t lord them selfs over other humans, like in slavery). Let the states make laws on issues like abortion, gay rights, and guns. And lastly let the counties, cities, and towns make choices in urban planning, schools, and other smaller issues.
Life becomes harder on the lobbyist when the power is in the hands of many. Politicians become more accountable when they live next door to constituents.
[Reply]
The politics of insanity and the politics of corruption are, in my mind, different. The politics of insanity are: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. The politics of insanity can be ended, because if you do something different and expect different results, then that is not insanity.
Corruption in politics is different. You are right, the politics of corruption can’t be ended by one candidate. Corruption can never be eradicated from politics, because there is always corruption where power is involved. However, the corruption in politics directly causes the politics of insanity. Moneyed special interests consistently give us only two choices, two evils, in our elections. That causes us to pick one of those two evils every time, and expect different results.
Therefore, for the government to be more effective and to help get rid of the politics of insanity, there should be less corruption.
The National Initiative for Democracy is aimed at combating corruption. Only the American people can lessen corruption in their government; the people who are immeshed in the system are often corrupt and can’t. So, no, Mike Gravel can’t get rid of corruption in Washington; no one can. But the National Initiative for Democracy is the best proposal out there that I have seen to combat corruption.
Your suggestion is interesting. It is perhaps reminiscient of the Articles of Confederation that we had before the Constitution was written. The Constitution created a strong central government, while the Articles of Confederation made us a loose union of states with no real strong central government. Under the Articles, the national Congress could not levy taxes and had to request money from the states (it’s quite the opposite now). The Articles of Confederation gave the states a great deal more freedom, in other words.
In the late 1700’s, when the debate on whether or not to ratify the new Constitution was raging, there were two main views on government: Federalist (or in favor of a strong central government) or Anti-Federalist (in favor of a weaker national government and stronger states rights). Anti-Federalists were opposed to the Constitution because they thought that a stronger government threatened the sovereignty and prestige of the states and local communities. There was not a right or wrong answer then, and there is not a right or wrong answer now. I just find it very interesting that the arguments of the Federalists and Anti-Federalists are still being argued today.
Hopefully I haven’t written anything here that is too nonsensical.
[Reply]
I think I see your point now. By eliminating politicians from making the major laws, we can have the people voices. On the surface this seems like a great idea, but the masses are volatile, and need stable leadership. That’s why I say forgetting the federal government, in favor of states, in some aspects is a better solution.
[Reply]