Plato and the Neocons

Here's an interesting piece at Salon.com about the connection between Plato and Leo Strauss, the founder of the neoconservative movement.

Politics As Usual

According to the AP, John Edwards is looking to feature his "Two Americas" theme more prominently in his campaign. Despite the substantive issues Edwards is attempting to raise--the growing income disparity in America, a tax system that favors the rich, out of control credit card companies--the Republican party's response is a predictable non sequitur. The spokesman for the Republican National Committee, Dan Ronayne, had nothing more intelligent to say than "John Edwards likes to talk about the 'Two Americas' but he should add a third America — his. The America of $400 haircuts, mansions, hedge funds and tax loopholes is one uniquely his own."
Notwithstanding the obvious factual inaccuracy of this statement (there are plenty of people in an America of lavish haircuts, mansions, hedge funds, and tax loopholes), the vapid nature of the response makes one shudder.
It is puzzling that on issues that every American should be concerned with, the people do not demand better from their politicians. Petty ad hominem attacks such as Ronayne's should offend the sensibilities of anyone who truly cares about the country and its problems. Perhaps this country is ready for a viable, third party candidate to change the nature of politics.

The More Things Change...

The New York Times reports today that House Republicans are delaying passage of a $37.4 billion dollar appropriations bill due to concerns over...earmarks. Of course, under Republican control, the number and amount of earmarks increased exponentially and now the Democrats are trying to get theirs.
Ralph Nader is fond of stating that there isn't a significant difference between the two major parties and this news supports that view. Unfortunately, the system at this point is designed to perpetuate two party dominance. And such a system only encourages corruption--if the people only have two choices, indignation at one party only puts the other, equally unethical, party in control.
Of course, it doesn't have to be this way. For one, the media can give more time to third party candidates and independents. Why not sponsor a debate for such candidates? Additionally, public financing of elections could break the Democrat and Republican party monopoly. Numerous political parties have emerged and met their demise throughout American history. Let's not assume that the Republican and Democratic parties are the only games in town.

Public Financing of Elections

Al Franken has a nice post about his work as a Senate candidate--namely, constant fund raising. That, along with Joe Biden's impassioned comments in Sunday's Democratic debates, underscores the need for public financing of elections. All presidential candidates should be required to meet a certain threshold of popular support, at which point they would qualify for federal funds. No more money from corporations or PAC's. Every dollar the candidates spend comes directly from the public. Non-cable channels (NBC, PBS, CBS, FOX, ABC) should be required to provide free air time to the candidates; after all, the people of this country own the airwaves, not corporations. The Supreme Court decision that equated campaign donations with free speech could not have been more wrongly reasoned. Corporations should not be entitled to more "free" speech by virtue of their immense wealth.
Such a system would of course help rid campaigns of corporate dollars, but also encourage the candidates to spend money wisely and frugally. It shouldn't cost hundreds of millions of dollars to be president of the USA.