It looks obvious

The residence of Voinesti, a Romanian village, got it right:

Neculai Ivascu, 57, who had run the village of Voinesti since 1990, died from liver disease just after voting began on Sunday - but still won the election by a margin of 23 votes.

I think we should adopt this idea and make it a prerequisite to be dead before running for any public office. It would, the least, reduce the damage created by live officials…

During every election season, and the current one is no exception, many candidates promising to “fix” washington and bring new kind of politic - an bipartisan administration that deal with the problems and not with narrow political interests. They promising to heal the nation from the devision inflicted by past administrations and to calm the social conflicts. Yet, they all fail to achieve this promise, which seems so fundamental in their campaign agenda. 

Are they laying? Are all of them simply cynical politician that identify the public yearn for an administration that is busy solving “issues” and are disgusted from the political game? not necessarily. Even a politician like Romney, that seems to have no core believes, probably thinks that he can bring his experience, as a very successful businessman and very competent manager, and make Washington “Work”. But both Romney and Obama will not change Washington.

A realistic observer has to admit that bipartisan politic is bad politic. I’m not talking about the compromises and the back-room deals, those are the oil that smooth the political system. I’m talking about the appearance of the political game. It is hard to generate support, or to bring people to vote for a politicians if it is hard to find the differences between them. Making those difference apparent, often superficially, is very important if one desire to be elected. Take for example the differences between Clinton and Obama, what are they? how really different are they? it is hard to tell, and the candidates will do their best to make it even harder.

But this is not the heart of the problem.

Over the years the political system got involved in issues that are a meter of individual choice, or social standards. Involving the coercion power of the government in order to force one set of standards instead of leaving those decisions to the local community, or better for the individual, is bound to involve increasing tension between different groups. The idea that decisions in one central place - can, or should, be good for everyone is at best wrong. When every aspect of life is being determined by regulations, and the ability to force them, the differences that otherwise aren’t that important for the social life become crucial.

Promising to “heal” the social fractions by government is, in a liberal democracy, a paradox. Interestingly enough there is only one candidate that point to this paradox - but he doesn’t offer a change, he offer a revolution