We also have a Green Party, though I'm not sure what the ideology is. I recently saw a news report on the nominee for the B.E.E.R (Bear + Deer = Deer) party: an old hippie who wears an Uncle Sam costume and campaigns from his renovated Model T. He said he would have went unchallenged in the Primaries and would have gotten a unanimous vote from the party, had a few of them not been too drunk to raise their hand.
There's lots of Green Parties around. In the UK, there's one for each of its countries.
True. But one could argue that the ability to raise money and organize and inspire people around you is evidence of your leadership skills. I think if you need money to advertise you soap, coffee maker, computer or trading cards, then it should be even more important to raise money for your campaign. And the more popular you become, well, then money would be an important mechanic in the process.
I don't think leadership is necessarily an important skill. All you have to do is decide what needs to be done and write it down. It shouldn't matter how charismatic you are, so long as you get across your decisions.
And money is overrated. I'm all for abolishing it (or at least not allowing one person to have more than a certain amount - the excess is automatically taken off them and given to science or charities. But that's just my idea.
If power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely, then a "benevolent dictatorship", I would think, would be something of an oxymoron. I for one have always felt that imperfect humans should never be given full unchecked power of a nation. Even a benevolent, well-meaning leader can make gruesome mistakes if his decision making can't be counter balanced in any way. But, then again, I'm also of the opinion that humans are incapable of properly governing themselves anyway, due to their imperfect nature. But a series of checks and balances is most likely the lesser of such "evils".
It combines being able to cause real changes regardless of the minority that would complain about it, with the kind of people that actually want those changes to be for the benefit of mankind and not just for themselves (they don't even care about the publicity).
Of course, it'd be a bit hazardous to have just one person calling all the shots, because they won't be experts on everything and won't specifically know what's best in every situation. Perhaps have a dictator per department (money, education, war, etc.), who have to run their ideas by the others just to make sure they make some kind of sense. And there's be a Fuhrer to keep all of them in line.
It's therefore not so much about one person having complete power, as it is about being able to dismiss small complaints from minorities. The people in charge wouldn't be duty-bound to please as many people as possible - they would be responsible for making everything better. For example, banning all civilians from carrying guns would cause an uproar in America, but it would decrease the number of shootings and related deaths (which would be a good thing). Limiting the rights of prisoners would be another example, because it would lead to fewer repeat offenders because they know how badly they're treated.
But those that feel that way are in a minority, and no US candidate would get very far if he didn't share, in some manner, the values of the majority of his constituency. Evangelicals, for example, are a major demographic in some states, and Florida hinges largely on Obama garnering a large part of the Jewish vote. Politics is still very ideological because the nation at large is very religious (whether they're actively religious or not, they still identify with certain values). It's really only the internet where you find the majority of the agnostic/atheistic crowd. The largest part of the country without a doubt would not vote for, say, a person from the Godless Americans, a political group trying to get some of the affirmation "under God" type things removed from the Constitution. They'll vote for someone they identify with. Which is why it's considered quite a leap forward that Obama is doing well with working class white voters, a demographic he was supposed to have trouble with.
It's still wrong, though. Candidates should be judged on their policies, not on their religion or skin colour or their running mate's bra size. It should be about competence, not about which invisible person they talk to every night.
Then again, the Constitution is something that is borderline scripture in our country. Trying to get anything removed or appended to it is like trying to get Lucas to rewrite Star Wars.
If it's the prequel trilogy, then it
should be rewritten, no complaints.
Seriously, c'mon, at least reword the thing. Make it clear what it's on about. I'll admit to not having read the whole thing, but the thing that struck me the most about the parts I have read is that they can easily be interpreted in a number of ways, and often is.
