I disagree.

GUEST, your take on the political system in this country reminds me of the ivory tower view of the world that a group of Objectivists (Ayn Rand enthusiasts) I used to run with a few decades ago. They were in favor of unbridled Capitalism. Indeed, one of Ayn Rand's non-fiction books was entitled Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, in which she argues that due to government regulations, Capitalism has never been free to reach it's full potential. If it were left free of such regulations, then heroic, firm-jawed, clear-eyed businessmen with perfect integrity, such as Hank Reardon and Francisco d'Anconia (two characters in her novel Atlas Shrugged), would then be free to set the world aright and America would be turned into the Utopia it could be.

Rand contended that a dishonest businessman would invariably bring about his own downfall because all the other honest businessmen would learn quickly not to deal with him. She also maintained that unscrupulous businesses that exploited workers would fail quickly because all the workers would quit and find jobs with more honest businesses.

Yeah, right!

For every fictional Hank Reardon, there are twenty (conservative estimate) Kenneth Lays. And it's a little difficult to quit a job that you've been educated for that doesn't pay you fair wages when the only other jobs available in your area involve throwing hamburgers out the window at passing cars and pay minimum wage.

Ayn Rand and her disciples were basically Aristotelians. Aristotle was indeed a great philosopher and is regarded by some as the founder of science, but his science came from pure a priori reasoning—if it sounded good, and looked good on paper, then it had to be right. It wasn't until the Renaissance, when people like Galileo, well schooled in the Aristotelian approach to science and nature, added observation of the real world to all that a priori reasoning that science began to get a real picture of what the Cosmos is actually like.

GUEST, you have an idealistic, ivory tower view of the way our political system works. What you need to do is take a look at the real thing. I admire your idealism. Would that any candidate who we wanted to vote for because he or she reflects what we really believe in had a fair chance of being elected. Or even being listened to. But disappointingly enough, that just isn't the way it works. This is a two party system. It's designed to be that way. The way to make the kind of changes you want is to get involved with the party that most closely reflects your beliefs, even if it is a long way from what your beliefs are, and work to veer that party in the direction you want it to go. You can piss and moan and throw tantrums 'til hell freezes over, but this is the only way it can be done, short of bloody revolution (which has its own disadvantages).

Simple arithmetic:   say in 2004, Bush gets 47% of the vote, Pat Buchanan decides to run again and gets 1% of the vote (reducing the number who would have voted for Bush), Kerry gets 45%, the Socialist Labor Party gets 1%, the Libertarians get 2%, and Nader gets 4%. Bush wins the election. If everyone voted for the party nearest to the one that reflected what they wanted (even if quite a way off), Bush would get 48% and Kerry would get 52%. Kerry wins.

Okay, this may not be ideal. But—Bush lost the popular vote last time around (even with Nader and these other folks in there) but got in due to a) Gore's inaction when he should have demanded a full recount in Florida; b) the Machiavellian machinations of brother Jeb Bush and Katherine Harris; and a conservative Supreme Court, who should have stayed the hell out of it. And look at the mess Bush has managed to make, both domestically and internationally. Think of what he might try to do if he actually wins this next election and assumes he has a mandate from the American people!?? Is that what you'd like to see?

Damage control, GUEST. That's why many, many people are saying "ANYbody but Bush!"

Do what you feel you must. But be fully aware of what you are doing.

And before you start calling me a "Democrat," know that I have no party affiliation. I am independent and I regard myself as a progressive.

Don Firth