A "Tic" is a sudden, repetitive, non-rhythmic motor movement....."Much or many" is often used to describe the word "poly". Put the two words together, Poly-Tics, and we have the basic way that congress functions in Washington. A dis-jointed system of many uncoordinated movements between two political adversaries. The big question is, who is to blame ? Obviously the answer is the voting public. Most of the "greatest" and the "baby boomer" generations have watched the changes in our country with increasing concern. Many from those generations have also developed a desire to be involved while the younger generations feel that politics really don't affect them and besides, what can they do to change it ? Unfortunately, those in the 50-80 age range often lack the energy to undertake the rigors of a political campaign and the younger set lack the finances and/or time to get involved. Neither response changes or improves the situation we now find ourselves in, that is a government controlled by Poly-Tics. One answer becomes most apparent. Return our system of government to it's roots, that being a government run by peers, not career politicians that often forget their "roots" in the business world (although for many career politicians, including our current elected President, those roots never existed). Government "by the people" requires that those elected really be "one of the people", one that returns to their roots and real job after serving their country as an elected official. This can only be accomplished by refusing to return to office ANY politician that has been in place more than 2-3 terms. Those politicians should be encouraged to "groom" a succesor if they wish to promote their philosphy and the voting public should demand this through their votes.
Over the years, one of the most frustrating aspects of our modern political system is the apparent inability of the common man to ever feel as though his or her voice is heard. Unless one is willing to "buy" an audience with a congressman, or a personal relationship (along with healthy donations) exists prior to that congessman's election, nothing short of celebrity status will open the door to an effective discourse with one's elected representative. Although this has been true for many years, the current information age gives one the impression that his/her words are "heard" especially when so many of the elected officials refer to their "website", "facebook page" or "twitter account" as a way of communicating. In reality, their various mailboxes are likely filled with spam or accolades for something they've accomplished with very little exchange of thoughts. Perhaps what is needed is a sounding board or filtering system for the idea crowd, those who have real suggestions for improvement of our country rather than rants or raves. Ideas that originate outside the confines of a committee room rarely see the light of a fair discussion regarding that idea's merits. I would think there could be a way other than existing free-market websites that can bring their thoughts only to those that subscribe to that website, facebook page or twitter account. Maybe we need an "electronic" elected official ! I've often thought that in this day and time a computer should elect our officials simply by choosing the candidate that best reflects an individual voter's desires on various issues. This may be the only way into the backrooms of congress.
As the media feeding frenzy on both sides of the aisle continues over "scandals", we all need to take a step back and decide what is important and what is a prime-time example of pick and choose reporting for the sake of politics. Scandal on the Presidential level often becomes foremost in the minds of anyone capable of rational thinking, however, the media response often guides the minds of readers, and that guidance is usually biased. President Clinton proved that personality trumps principle. Death of a U.S. ambassor would likely stimulate heated discussion, but again, a Clinton proves that personality trumps principle. Lois Lerner and the IRS shows that the backing of a personable President trumps principle. The far left loves personality as long as the personality favors them, and the far right loves principle, as long as it's their principles. What can we take from this ? It is time to recognize the cold hard facts of an instant information age where personality will dictate whether your words are heard or your ideas are discussed. Dwelling on 'scandals' day after day before any resolution is at hand dulls the senses and bores the younger minds that are constantly looking for something newer or exciting. I've often asked younger people what they know about current events and the frequent response is "who cares, it's the same old s___ discussed over and over." Maye that is another area the media should consider. Quit having the same "experts" discuss issues in the same manner week after week and bring in some unknown, outside the circle speakers to get a better idea of what the average American thinks on an issue. Frank Luntz is close to doing that with his focus groups, but wouldn't it be interesting to see some of those "real people" in a one on one interiew with the headliners ! What do you think ?