All of you make excellent points.
In many parts of Europe, campaign contributions are illegal. Publicly-funded elections may not be the cure-all, but at least we might see a handful of elected officials that actually serve their electorate, and pay more than lip service to the ideology they profess. For example, GWB could hardly be called a fiscal conservative, or Clinton a fiscal progressive.
I disagree, however, with the notion that there is a new world order, or that globalism is unstoppable. We are our government. I also disagree with the assertion that the problem is that too many people are stupid. By definition, the average American is of average intelligence.
It seems to me that the tea party folks are on to something; they just misdirect their anger and support. Brown's election in MA didn't signal an unravelling of Obama's influence or some great national swing to the right (and certainly not in Massachusetts); it was simply an expression of dissatisfaction of the status quo of moneyed interests calling the shots for both parties. These people voted for change in '08, and by god, there will either be change or hell to pay. As if to say to their elected officials, "Washington has shown us no loyalty; in return we will show our parties no loyalty. Get off your ass and get to work. And if you don't, we'll vote for your opponent next time around, no matter how lame he is."
