With this post I inaugurate a new category that I’ve avoided until this point: Politics. I spent an inordinate amount of time today reading politically themed articles and blog posts. Most of that can be blamed on reading David Colborne’s blog and then following the ever expanding tree of links from there. I find myself doing something similar to this every few weeks, and I always come to the same conclusion at the end; I really know nothing about politics.

I usually feel I have a decent understanding of the current political climate, and an opinion of where I stand. After spending some time reading opinions, interpretations and news articles I feel like I’m back in elementary school again. Everyone throws around the terms; left, right, liberal, conservative, moderate, constitutionalist, and my personal favorite, paleo-conservative. However, I can find the same opinion expressed by a self proclaimed liberal and an obvious conservative; both of which will probably go on in the next paragraph to say something completely opposite of one another.

For example, I read one article about Hillary’s views on the Iraq war and think “OK, I’m on board with that” only to immediately read something such as the fact that her campaign is in debt, and has failed to pay some of their bills. What does that tell me about her (and/or her staffers’) ability to manage finances? Hillary is only one example; I’m not singling her out for any particular reason.

If I, a fairly well educated person who spends quite a bit of time keeping up on current events, am thoroughly confused, where does that leave a large portion of the American public? I can’t imagine the average blue-collar working American has the time to browse the internet and read the things I do. They are probably getting 100% of their news from their local network television station, with a smattering of water-cooler chat mixed in. Does this make me feel confident about the general public picking our next president? Hardly.

All of this brings into my mind the ideas of Socrates. He may very well have been on to something with his belief that the general member of society was not equipped with the knowledge to properly choose a ruler or rulers. I mean, we see the people that win American Idol; they are usually the most talented but also tend to conform to what society wants in the categories of looks, clothing, and attitude. Are these categories at all relevant to their singing? In some respects, they are a part of the performance. They are not, however, directly related to the person’s ability. Can we really believe this is a vastly different group of people than the ones going to the polls to elect our Commander-In-Chief?

Now I’m not advocating an aristocracy, or any elimination of democracy as Socrates was. However it is interesting to wonder what facets of our society, if any, would be better under that type of rule. Complete freedom of choice is not always a good thing for a society, as is evidenced by something like murder. For a society to exist and progress there must be rules, and someone to enforce these rules. When that enforcement is directed by a extremely large group of people, things are bound to become corrupt or deviate from the original intention.

So where does all this leave us? At a very interesting point in history, possibly more than we can know. I only hope we continue to evolve and grow as a society and don’t get caught up in a hodge podge of overbearing government à la Blade Runner or 1984. Of course some may say we’re already there.