To lend credence to individual leaders and public figures, especially those in the roles of public servants, is a natural and understandable inclination. Today this practice becomes more risky for a number of reasons. Perhaps honor and nobility are not as highly acclaimed in this age as in others. Politicians continue to say one thing and do another, making it increasingly difficult to trust their word. Not to mention their “word” is often intentionally displayed in such a way as to discourage further research into their policies and voting records. Was there a day when representation was entrusted completely without fear of betrayal? A day when a person’s word was scarcely transgressed, especially in the public spotlight? Perhaps, but perhaps not; one needs only to read Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States to learn a more accurate account of our early national leadership for reasons why not.

Time constraint is another reason for less than ambitious background checks into our public servant’s actions; often it is far easier to rely and trust blindly lest investigation necessitate only further investigation and a perpetual obsession ensues drawing even more time from family and other personal associations. Such time is so very valuable considering its limited availability, and one can hardly be blamed for prioritizing likewise their family first before their country. A familiar face usurps this time; it is the same system intent to busy the mind and body from early childhood on, retarding the onset of patriotic responsibility.

Typically, there are thought to be two alternatives to this dilemma: either studious investigation whenever time permits and act accordingly, i.e. the protesting and supporting of particular public servants according to their actions, or throw your arms in the air and say I give up and adhere to a stubborn skepticism of all political leaders. Either approach is likely to leave the status quo unchanged indefinitely, at the delight of its designers. The details of each candidate are cumbersome and misleading, and doing nothing certainly is not in the best interests of our nations future nor is it in the best interests of the oppressed nations worldwide. There must be a more creative solution.

Non-partisan allegiance to humanitarian agendas based on freedom and liberty independent specific denunciation or praise of an individual may prove a viable alternative. There are ways to let it be known that we are not satisfied with the choices presented. Assembly is of utmost importance, yet it is often taken for granted in Democratic nations, ironically, the very nations where it is presumed to make a difference most. Upon social assembly ideas can be discussed intelligently to lend insight to one another, not to merely rally for a person but for an idea, for a concept, for freedom.

Logic will prevail when one undertakes an approach that takes into account the frailty of individual human morality and the ability of the system itself to corrupt. We expect our government to assist in life’s communal necessities; that is why we are told it was created, after all. Yet some vehemently dispute such logic, even going so far as to suggest that medical care and monetary regulation is no business of our government. With enough money it is blatantly easy to enslave people, this is obvious, therefore only the government should have the ability to regulate money, and our government, if you read the constitution, has set forth the appropriate measures (gold and silver coin is the only legal tender for debt). This changed in 1913 with the advent of the Federal Reserve as America’s privately held bank, and in 1971 President Nixon abolished the gold standard. Private control of medicine has created life-saving endeavors into a just another business, putting a price on human life, a feat no humanitarian can deem just. These are two obvious examples, there are more, yet this should suffice. If one despises national healthcare or national regulation over banks, one does not share my expectations of my government to maintain its core function.

Rather than listening to the people, our government has pursued imperialistic endeavors, not dissimilar to ancient Rome. Is this what the people wish: expansion of power rather than security from these very same powers? The powers interested in this nation building worldwide are the very same powers that we need to be protected from. Anyone who thinks otherwise has not thoroughly investigated the matter.

-Tom