I used to think that everything was so simple in the world of politics. I thought that we voted for whatever we wanted to happen in this country and then it happens. I wish things really were that simple.

It turns out that when it comes to leaders nothing is simple.

I've heard it said that power is just a balancing act between freedom and law. As I've pondered what power really was I found that such is not the case. If you were to give all of the power to the people without any leader at all (aka anarchy) then the people would just abuse that power and end up worse off in the end. This also applies if you give all of the power to one man or woman. Even if you split the power between the two they will still end up becoming corrupted, just at a slower rate.

If you don't believe me look at the press. In the very first amendment to our constitution the government guaranteed freedom of the press and freedom of speech among other things for the American people. The press uses this power to broadcast stories that don't reveal whole truths. Most news stations are biased and try to convince people to think their way. Conversely, if the government directly controls the press then they can use it to make themselves look better and brainwash the people to think that their opinions are the best.

Despite all of this it isn't quite hopeless. While no anarchy has ever been successful, and democratic republics will slowly deteriorate to one side or the other, complete power has actually found a few incorruptible men. Granted, these instances have been few and far between but the fact that they happened at one point convinces me that it could happen again. This does not by any means mean that we should jump into communism, that's too big of a risk. However, if a largely educated people were to choose someone to hold complete power without becoming corrupted, we might just be able to turn the rapidly falling earth around.

Just a thought,
Elburroloco