A rare political piece

As an historian, my girlfriend often chides me about my total lack of regard for contemporary American politics. But what can I say? It's all the same posturing, nothing ever changes, and frankly it's not very interesting. However, last night on Leno I caught part of his interview with Republican candidate Ron Paul and I was impressed with what the guy had to say. Mainly, I enjoyed his strong adherence to republicanism (with a small "r"), that is, keeping government small and letting social and economic forces play out in a free market. This got me wondering about where we went wrong as a political nation. Clearly, I think it was the New Deal that created a government people needed and relied on. Of course, this was a matter of survival in the 30s and 40s. Then in the 50s it seems like the government started to exploit the system in a way that only worsened in the 60s and 70s. By that time, federal government was too big to reduce, and the coming of Reagan was the final straw. Today though, despite an economic recession, I think it's more important than ever to reduce the size of the national government and allot greater sovereignty to individual states. It just seems that the entire system is broke and needs to be fixed, and reducing the size of government is one feasible way and one that is in accordance with the principles this nation was founded upon. Furthermore, accountability would be restored on an individual and local level.

Since we're talking about a system overhaul, I think one area politicians need to look is the state of campaigning in this country. Yes, we are a large country with a population over 300 million, but that is no reason to have 1-2 year presidential campaigns. The British parliamentary system has is right. When the British form a new government they campaign for about a month and then have their elections. How pleasant would it be to simply have campaigns in October and then vote in November. There's less posturing, bullshit, and mudslinging that way and it is much more cost effective. By having less time to run a campaign it would be easier (theoretically) for individuals of more modest means to gain access to the American political system. If there is a more socially representative population in the house and the senate then there would be less need for PACs and other lobby groups. It just seems to me that solutions are simple, but that people don't want to have to deal with the whining and are unwilling to undergo a little hardship for the greater, long-term good. That myopic perspective is what got us here in the first place.