Maurice Saatchi urges America to rediscover its practical idealism

Lord Saatchi, former Chairman of Britain's Conservative Party and executive director of the M&C Saatchi advertising agency, has written for today's Financial Times about anti-Americanism and how it might be addressed.  The FT article is itself a summary of a paper that he has written for Sheila Lawlor's Politeia think tank.

Lord Saatchi, speaking in London's Carlton Club in front of a painting of Margaret Thatcher, lists some of the common criticisms of America:

• It is too much in love with money – worshipping the god of the marketplace, the golden calf.
• It has too much money, seven of the top 10 banks, eight of the top 10 companies etc.
• It is too stingy, giving away less of its wealth than other countries.
• It is vulgar, a rich barbarian.
• It has a lowly culture yet practises cultural imperialism.
• It is arrogant and condescending to “the little monkeys” from other cultures.
• It is too religious, saying “God bless America” once too often.
• It has too much power, spending more on arms than the rest of the world put together.
• It is a hypocrite, disguising its wars of self-interest as humanitarian interventions and exporting democracy at the point of a bayonet.
• It is inconsistent – agitating for “regime change” with some “un-democratic” countries, but with others giving arms, aid and trade.
• It has an incoherent foreign policy – it abandoned the “no first strike” principle which kept the peace for decades; “pre-emption” replaced “deterrence” but has no basis in international law.
• It is too close to Israel.
• It resists multilateral solutions, preferring unilateralism, hegemony, a sheriff strategy – In Guns We Trust.

Many examples of anti-Americanism are contradictory, of course.   Some hate America for its Hollywood-led decadence - others for the traditional morality of the religious right.  Some think America is too interventionist - others want it to be much more involved in policing the world.

Lord Saatchi notes that isolationism was theoretically possible in pre-globalisation America but that is not a credible option anymore.  Lord Saatchi's solution to anti-Americanism is a restoration of its practical idealism:

"True Americanism is practical idealism. Its aims, instead of being materialistic and mechanical, are idealistic to the point of being Utopian. In this way, the US can provide and express ideals that strike a chord in humans everywhere – a declaration of independence on behalf of all the peoples of the world.  To disarm its enemies and defeat its rivals, America only has to focus its intellectual energy and its vast econ omic resources on the policies that would help the world follow its lead, to rediscover the language to project its founding ideology beyond its own shores and to remind the world of its ultimate belief – in self-determination, individuality, independence – and in democracy only as a means to that great end."

THE FULL FT ARTICLE IS HERE.

Comments

[JF]

On this day of Independence, I dread reading statements such as the following:

To disarm its enemies and defeat its rivals, America only has to focus its intellectual energy and its vast economic resources on the policies that would help the world follow its lead, to rediscover the language to project its founding ideology beyond its own shores and to remind the world of its ultimate belief – in self-determination, individuality, independence – and in democracy only as a means to that great end.

I fear that Saatchi has no fundamental understanding of what the United States is.

The United States is not the American form of the EU, but rather, it is a nation state with its own interests and methodologies. Just like every other Western country (with the possible exception of France), we act out of what we believe to be just causes, not for money (as does France) or desire to spread our culture (France) or because we feel that it is necessary for us to secure our place in history (France). When we act primarily out of self-interest, as much as possible we ensure such acts adhere to our values.

For some reason, the "international community" chooses not to see America as it sees itself, but rather believes that everything American proclaims itself to be is propaganda, and instead serves to conceal the underlying conspiracy that America schemes to rule the world. The Declaration of Independence, in part, reads:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands, which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain Inalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Indeed, we hold these truths to be self-evident, and act out of that belief. As our belief is rooted in natural law, it is not only for us, but for the world—when our government abuses these rights, it is our obligation to overthrow the government. When other governments abuse these rights, and it is in our power to rectify such an injustice, should we not help see justice done?

Afghanistan could have been nothing more than a retaliatory raid, with carpet-bombing and napalm. However, the United States took it upon itself, spending blood and treasure, to institute democracy such that Afghanistan's new government would assume its rightful role of protector and provider to the people, not oppressor of the people as it was under the Taliban.

Similarly, Iraq was being slowly strangled to death under sanctions, with a tyrant in power, enriching himself with the active help of the corrupt United Nations while his people starved. France and Russia plotted the best way to get oil contracts while the United States and Britain were left to enforce to no-fly zone and protect the Shiites and Kurds.

So you may ask: why does America choose such a role? Reflect, for a moment, on the lengths to which the United States has gone to ensure that Pax Americana is maintained, to the benefit of the entire world:

We have troops stationed in Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Djibouti, Egypt, South Korea, Japan, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, Australia, Germany, Italy, Britain, Bosnia, Spain, Turkey, Iceland, Serbia, Belgium, Portugal, the Netherlands, Greece, Greenland, Macedonia, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, Qatar, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates, Saudia Arabia, Cuba, Honduras, Canada, and Ecuador.

So why does the United States station its soldiers all over the world?

We have been left, by default, as the prime defender of Western values; and as the adage advises: the best defense is a good offense. Liberty, democracy, and capitalism is the best way to ensure peace and prosperity, and if those ideals happens to coincide with American self-interest, then all the better.

Contrast the behavior of America with all previous superpowers, and it is objectively impossible to come away with the realization that American hegemony has been the most benevolent that the world has ever seen, and perhaps ever will see. Never has a country done more to help the peoples of the world realize their dreams of self-determination while providing them with the framework to ensure their economies prosper.

Saatchi implores the US to rediscover its “practical idealism” while ignoring the reality of such a belief system. He should look no further than the EU in realizing that “practical idealism” is nothing more than a call for the suppression of the popular will. Less capitalism, less democracy, less pride in identity, less freedom. I think Saatchi and all detractors of the United States will find that Americans will always choose to uphold humanity’s inalienable rights, world opinion be damned (and rightfully so).

Saatchi calls, in essence, for America to rectify its ways by becoming perfect. It can do this, he implies, in correcting its hypocrisies by ensuring that all dictatorships are overthrown or none are, by ignoring the natural charity of its people and instead raising taxes to pour down the money pit that is Africa, by unilaterally disarming and abolishing trade barriers (without waiting for the EU and China) but simultaneously submitting itself to the capricious judgment of multilateral institutions.

Is Europe indeed a puppet, that it must wait for the US to act first? Where is European leadership on these areas? Does the existence of the United States prevent Europe from eliminating its own hypocrisy by acting on these very demands it places on us?

Indeed, those who are so quick to blame America first should ask themselves what is preferable: America as it is, or an America that suppresses free trade, that withdraws from all of the multilateral institutions, and rejects any role in rectifying the atrocities and failings of the world outside its borders?

[Simon Newman]

"when our government abuses these rights, it is our obligation to overthrow the government."

A sentiment that helps guarantee liberty.

"When other governments abuse these rights, and it is in our power to rectify such an injustice, should we not help see justice done?"

A sentiment that helps guarantee unending war.

It's not for America to decide that some other country's government doesn't meet America's standards, and overthrow it on that basis. Other people aren't Americans; many countries aren't capable of maintaining an American style government. Overthrowing their governments for being unjust doesn't create justice, it just creates chaos.

[Denise]

Well, I hate to break it to the world but in case no one realized it, a part of America died on 9/11. The part that was too trusting toward our many immigrants that we either welcomed without checking their background or allowed to run all over us illegally without us doing anything about it for so long. Any part that was ever willing to give the benefit of the doubt and second chances. The part that constantly forked over foreign aid while many of her own people were homeless, out of work and hungry. The part of America that's left is fed up. We're tired of being taken advantage of. And if the world doesn't like us finally standing up for ourselves, then too bad.

Most Americans are middle class folks who earn just enough to pay the mortgage or rent, pay the bills, keep food on the table and a roof over their heads while raising their children and putting them through school but there isn't much left over. Some are actually poor. Others are just barely getting by. There are people who can't find work because the wages are too low for the cost of living (companies are so used to paying low wages to illegals living ten or more to a household, they don't want to pay more to an American household of only a few). Some can't find jobs because they were laid off at age 50 or so due to outsourcing and no one else wants to hire them because of their age and any health issues they may have. Anyone thinking we are all a bunch of Donald Trumps have another think coming. We have natural disasters, too. Homes gets destroyed here too. America has her own people to help. What's wrong with America taking care of herself for a change?

As for being 'too' religious, I am not going to compromise my beliefs just to please some atheist living in London, some bureaucrat in the EU or some Muslim who wants to blow me up. If you don't like me, fine, don't.

As for being too close to Israel, Israel has a right to exist as a nation but it seems that a majority of the world does not think so. They would rather support Palestinians who've made it clear they do not want a Palestinian state but instead want Israel gone. Iran, too, wants Israel gone. But of course, Israel is the evil monster, just like America, right? If you don't want me supporting Israel, too bad.

We spend so much money on our arms because who else in the world is going to? Europe has allowed Islamic extremists to take over just as they did the Nazis. History repeats itself. Enemy's are appeased as usual.

As for being a hypocrite regarding wars and self interest, name one nation that never acts out of self interest. If Europe had that power they would do the same in a heartbeat and they know it. Why else are they trying to form the EU?

As for the guns, darn right. When people give up their arms, they give up their rights and sovereignty. It's easier for big government to take over the lives of those who cannot defend themselves, isn't it?

[JF]

Simon Newman,

It's not for America to decide that some other country's government doesn't meet America's standards, and overthrow it on that basis. Other people aren't Americans; many countries aren't capable of maintaining an American style government. Overthrowing their governments for being unjust doesn't create justice, it just creates chaos.

I don't believe that other people are Americans, but if they are struggling against a dictator and want to implement democracy, I believe it is both just and to our benefit to help them.

On the other hand, perhaps you're correct, and we should substitute liberal intervention with "might makes right" and "whoever has the gold, make the rules." Thanks for absolving us of any responsibility for Africa.

[Simon Newman]

"On the other hand, perhaps you're correct, and we should substitute liberal intervention with "might makes right" and "whoever has the gold, make the rules." Thanks for absolving us of any responsibility for Africa."

IMO Africa would be a lot better off without well-meaning foreigners constantly taking 'responsibility' for her. As for liberal intervention, sometimes it does more good than harm (Sierra Leone), but only when married to hard-headed empirical assessmment of what's possible. Without that, you get disaster (Somalia, Iraq) - whether the liberal interventionists are nominally of the left or right.

[Simon Newman]

"Well, I hate to break it to the world but in case no one realized it, a part of America died on 9/11. The part that was too trusting toward our many immigrants that we either welcomed without checking their background or allowed to run all over us illegally without us doing anything about it for so long."

That part certainly didn't die in GW Bush's heart, since he both opposes 'racial profiling' of likely terrorists and supports uncontrolled Mexican immigration.

[Simon Newman]

Denise:
"And if the world doesn't like us finally standing up for ourselves, then too bad. "

I'm all for America standing up for herself - you sound like a Jacksonian 'don't tread on me' populist, which is pretty close to my own view. That justifies strong defense when attacked, as in Afghanistan 2001. It's a long way from attacking any country whose government doesn't meet your human rights standards.

[Simon Newman]

Denise - sorry if I got your comments conflated with JF's above, thinking you agreed with JF - I see you may simply have been replying to the original article on Saatchi.

[Steevo]

I'm not sure where Mr. Saatchi is coming from? He lays out the accusations in the context, they are there and many. Its seems he believes it... to a point.

I think he gives America an altruistic credit that's not wholly deserved. "Practical Idealism" and this utopian-like roots sounds great to me but its not what I've seen nor understood in our history.

"America was born out of a desire for self-determination, a longing for the human dignity that only independence can bring." That's correct.

"Americans of all national origins, religions, creeds and colours would hold in common the ideals of the essential equality of all human beings, of inalienable rights to freedom, justice and opportunity. America would embrace meritocracy before hierarchy. Its frontier spirit would mean anyone could do well if they were determined. In the US nothing would be impossible. Americans would breathe free – with freedom of speech and thought for all men and all women. These were the motives that made America the inspiration for so many millions of people – not its wealth but its intense belief in its moral purpose." This requires quite a bit qualification. To simplify quite a bit: "Freedom," "justice," and "opportunity" are based around the principles of Natural Law superseding that of the government and unjust coercion. We've now been inundated with Liberalism and the notion of 'rights', in many respects before Europe and in many respects struggling not to become like Europe. Our entire moral basis giving us a foundation for self-determination with God-given natural rights has been grossly usurped and perverted. What we see now is a more self-centered and materialist, less self-disciplined and responsible culture and by and large, people.

"To disarm its enemies and defeat its rivals, America only has to focus its intellectual energy and its vast econ­omic resources on the policies that would help the world follow its lead, to rediscover the language to project its founding ideology beyond its own shores and to remind the world of its ultimate belief – in self-determination, individuality, independence – and in democracy only as a means to that great end." Geese I just gotta say, dream on. We're immeshed in the same materialistic mind-set as Europe. Mr. Saatchi does not understand it takes more than a change of policy or attitude.

I agree, it figures, with my conservative Americans JF and Denise in that we are 1 country and will do what we can for our own interests. And if the idea of taking out one of the most evil tyrants in history and puting our blood on the line in the hope for some kind of a democracy and free people in the midst of a very troubled area of the world bothers others... too bad. Its the Iraqi people who want this hope and our troops willing to sacrafice, who should have the right of say. How dare people on the other side of this world, in freedom at that, say no. Get over your own insecure egos and find something of real value to feel good about yourselves. You don't speak for these folks so morally your cause is bankrupt, and that's puting it polite.

[JF]

Simon Newman, I couldn't agree more. Jeffrey Sachs is a fraud and has probably done more than any single individual to destroy Africa's hopes of dragging itself out of constant crisis. However, Saatchi specifically pointed out that the United States doesn't give away enough of its wealth to other countries--any idea what he had in mind as far as who those "other countries" are?

When Africa learns to stand on its own, it will prosper. But we can make a gentleman's bet that the "international community," including the UK, will continue to criticize the US for not doing enough about Africa. Meanwhile, it will find no irony for condemning our intervention in other troubled countries across the world.

In other words, I wasn't trying to be sarcastic when I thanked you for absolving the United States of responsibility for Africa. As horrible as I believe the events are in Darfur, the "international community's" willful attacks on the US involvement in the war on terror preclude any action on our part there. If Europe would deign to actually help us in Afghanistan as its NATO obligations demand it must, we could probably intervene, but Europe doesn't actually see the United States as an ally, so it sees no need for reciprocal enforcement of defense treaty obligations.

So Darfur is in Europe's hands. Since Europe has stood by as every genocide in the last century has taken place, it will certainly stand by and watch in this case as well (probably to its secret delight).

[Simon Newman]

JF:
"However, Saatchi specifically pointed out that the United States doesn't give away enough of its wealth to other countries--any idea what he had in mind as far as who those "other countries" are?"

No idea - Saatchi's claim is a lie anyway, these figures count only intergovernmental aid, not charitable giving by individuals, in which the USA leads the world by a long way, both absolutely and per capita.

[Denise]

Yes, Simon. I was replying to the original article on Saatchi.

[Denise]

There is one other point I feel I must make. Americans are labeled hypocrites because we don't always live up to what America is supposed to stand for. But what America stands for is something we STRIVE to be. Not CLAIM to be. There is a difference. For example, it's like a Christian who wants to walk in the footsteps of Jesus. No matter how hard that person tries, he or she will never be perfect, perform miracles or ever walk on water. So because of this, Christians get labeled hypocrites as well.

[Denise]

Simon, about Bush, I have to agree with you on that.

[S. Baker]

Denise for president!

[Jh]

I disagree with those that say part of America died on 9/11.

I will bypass commenting on the topic of immigration. I do enough battle with my fellow conservatives that are destroying our movement over that issue.

First I wonder if people read the entire article at the link. THe hostility toward him and his piece is a bit strange to me

The key point is this and it appears conservatives need to promote this more
"
Before globalisation it was possible – at least in theory – for the US to be isolationist. It was possible to say about other nations, as prime minister Neville Chamberlain said about Czechoslovakia in 1938, that it was “a faraway country of which we know little”.

Now there are no faraway countries. There never will be again. Each day, we have a clear, stark and often alarming view of our multi-ethnic planet."

That is lesson we should take to heart. I am hearing too much Lou Dobbs rethoric in conservative circles as to this point.

Also I see no indication that he views the United States as like the EU

JH
LOuisiana

[Jh]

"Jeffrey Sachs is a fraud and has probably done more than any single individual to destroy Africa's hopes of dragging itself out of constant crisis. However, Saatchi specifically pointed out that the United States doesn't give away enough of its wealth to other countries--any idea what he had in mind as far as who those "other countries" are?"

Steevo, he is taliking about the perception he is not saying he endorses that all.

Alsowhy do people think when he is talking about "economic resources" that is only talking about Foreign aid.

[Jh]

"Jeffrey Sachs is a fraud and has probably done more than any single individual to destroy Africa's hopes of dragging itself out of constant crisis. However, Saatchi specifically pointed out that the United States doesn't give away enough of its wealth to other countries--any idea what he had in mind as far as who those "other countries" are?"

Steevo, he is taliking about the perception he is not saying he endorses that all.

Alsowhy do people think when he is talking about "economic resources" that is only talking about Foreign aid.

[Steevo]

Yeah you confused me with JF. I know he's talking of a perception, but I do question how much he believes as he discusses how the onus is on us to change, to 'satisfy and make believers'. Also, I think its worth emphasizing again Saatchi seems to believe we can turn on this glorious light by changes which are not realistic to realities.

[Denise]

"Denise for president!" Funny you should say that, S. Baker. Because in the year 2012, when I will be of age, I was thinking of doing just that! Who knows. Just an idea. Right now I'm only 32 and just a wee bit too young. How I would get the money for campaigning is something I would have to really work on, though. I am not rich like all these other candidates. I'm just an average middle class Jane Doe but maybe that's exactly what this country needs for a change. Politicians lose touch with the American people as do all those Hollywood celebrities. I'm a no nonsense kind of gal who won't put up with any crap. I will also tell things as I see them without being politically correct about it. If no one likes it, tough. I might have to run as an Independent. Even though I'm very conservative, the Republican party still may not want me representing them. I might be a bit 'out there' for them. And I might get assassinated before people even have a chance to vote for me because I know I'll make a lot of people angry. But as Rhett Butler told Scarlet in Gone With the Wind, "Frankly my dear,..." And maybe you know the rest.

[S. Baker]

Denise you've got my vote. I am getting ready to leave the military and thought about state politics, but I am not sure. I think I will help in the next election. The I will make up my mind.

[Denise]

Great, thanks! It's nice to know I have a supporter. Although I'm wondering if I will be able to try in 2012. I will see how things go. I have a 16 month old and will probably have another little one by then. I also work full time, so it's all a matter of time and money. But I also realize the sacrifices people make for their country. You would know about that! So the more I think about it, the more I want to do it. All I need to do is get my ducks in a row.

Interesting to know you are in the military. I would like to know the concerns of folks in the military from their views on how to best defend America, to personal issues, such as health care for the wounded soldiers. I've been hearing that many soldiers who've returned from Iraq or Afghanistan severely wounded are having trouble not only with their own medical issues but with supporting their families as well. I would like to know how widespread this problem is. BTW, I used to date a guy in the military. 82nd Airborne during Desert Storm but now he's in the National Guard, I believe. I think he's in Iraq as we speak. My dad was in the army and was asked if he would enter in politics but declined. I think he would have done well. He has my views. Great to hear you might help in the next election. Good luck! ;-)

[Da Coyote]

Having been slapped with this glove before, allow me to take these point by point:

1."It is too much in love with money – worshipping the god of the marketplace, the golden calf." & "It has too much money, seven of the top 10 banks, eight of the top 10 companies etc."

Isn't it funny that the people pointing fingers at America for being too obsessed with money list that obsession on four of their twelve complaints? That's a full one-third of their problem with America. I bet if we stopped giving foriegn aid we could get that number up to 6 of 12.

2.It is too stingy, giving away less of its wealth than other countries."

This one is rich, pun intended, as America gives away more in foreign aid than any other country in the world. Further more, American citizens freely give away from their own pockets more than the Federal Government does. Those that claim America has too much money are envious of America's wealth and uninformed of how much of that wealth positively impacts their personal lives. God help them if America decides to just stop sending foriegn aid. And I'd like to add that resource-wise there are many countries out there that could be as wealthy as America is if only they'd free their people and markets. Helping you help yourself is one thing- just redistributing wealth for some socialist principle is something else again.

3."It is vulgar, a rich barbarian.
It has a lowly culture yet practises cultural imperialism."

Who gets to decide if America's culture is 'lowly'? Sounds like someone guilty of cultural imperialism to me.

4."It is arrogant and condescending to “the little monkeys” from other cultures."

If those 'little monkeys' from other cultures would stop acting like monkeys then maybe the condescending attidude would stop. Respect is earned, not bestowed.

5."It is too religious, saying “God bless America” once too often."

Would this still be a problem if America's official religion was Islam? What if the motto was 'America blessed be?' The truth is that, unlike France or even our esteemed brethren in the UK, the American Constitution explictly forbids an official national religion. In America we have Wiccans, Catholics, Marxists, and athiests all living in relative peace with one another. Can France say the same?

6. "It has too much power, spending more on arms than the rest of the world put together."

Sun Tsu wrote in his tome the Art of War: 'Therefore the skillful leader subdues the enemy's troops without any fighting; he captures their cities without laying siege to them; he overthrows their kingdom without lengthy operations in the field.' Of course that is an modern English translation, and not a poetic on at that. But it does answer the question of why America maintains such an overpowering military. By maintaining superior military forces America doesn't have to fight as many wars as she would if her defenses were lighter. As the Romans would have put it: To ensure peace prepare for war.

7. "It is a hypocrite, disguising its wars of self-interest as humanitarian interventions and exporting democracy at the point of a bayonet."

Guilty as charged. The word 'War' has become politically incorrect and most people have become so uneducated in history, ecomomics and geography that they no longer understand that interventions in foriegn lands are often in the best interest of not only America but the world at large. But I would like someone to ask the Germans, the French, the Italians, and the Japanese if they would prefer to live under a totalitarian regime rather than the democracies forced upon them by the blood of the American soldier.

8."It is inconsistent – agitating for “regime change” with some “un-democratic” countries, but with others giving arms, aid and trade."

Again, Guilty as charged. Show me a democratic government that maintains consistency over a fifty year period in it's foriegn policy and I'll show you dictatorship with the word 'republic' in it's name.

9."It has an incoherent foreign policy – it abandoned the “no first strike” principle which kept the peace for decades; “pre-emption” replaced “deterrence” but has no basis in international law."

Americans don't live under 'international law'. Those that demand American comform to international law believe themselves to be superior to the upstart USA that they feel should be submissive to the courts and parliaments of distant lands rather than a soveriegn, self-governing republic.

10."It is too close to Israel."

Another case of foriegners believing that they, rather than Americans, should decide America's foriegn policy.

11."It resists multilateral solutions, preferring unilateralism, hegemony, a sheriff strategy – In Guns We Trust."

'Multilateral' solutions are the ones that France likes. 'Unilateral' solutions are the ones France doesn't like. I'll let you in on a secret: Most Americans don't really care what France does or doesn't like.

And as for the 'In Guns we Trust', you betcha! If you think America is an oppresive capitalist empire now, you just wait until our citizenry is disarmed and the powers that be become unchecked by the electorate.

[Denise]

Da Coyote, you can be my running mate! :)

[Da Coyote]

Well Denise, by 2012 I'll have reached the constitutionally mandated age, though I doubt I would do your ticket any good.

But if I may offer a bit of unsolicited advice? The constitution only requires an age of 25 for a seat in the House. Don't wait for the top slot. If you think you have what it takes to deal with the BS in DC put your hat in the ring for your district's House seat.

The primary failure of American democracy is the near total lack of citizen involvement. We leave the politicians in charge of running things- and look what it's got us.

Get in the House, take some windex and alot of paper towels, and after a term or two make your move for a seat in the Senate.

Having someone of your commonsense in the oval office would be a blessing, but many of the real battles are stuck in committee, or offerred as an amendment to an unrelated bill. We need good people with commonsense and tenacity to fight socialism in it's natural environment: the legislature.

Which state in the union can I keep a look-out for you?