None from Column A or from Column B

The day of Chinese restaurants restricting customers to programmed menu choices is waning as buffets continue to overwhelm the market. Many younger people will have no idea of what the title refers to.

The issue, raised on a favorite blog I visit (www.boileryard.blogspot.com), was that many writers there had no horse to bet on in the upcoming presidential contest. One recommended forming yet another political party, but 'this time' we would get it right because we are all so much smarter than all those other ridiculous people and their parties. Sent a chill down my spine, even as I sighed.

Sorry to burst the bubble, but the fundamental concept of forming a 'truly righteous' party is flawed to begin with.

The party system is one of the biggest flaws of contemporary politics. Us versus Them. Whigs against Torries.

The purpose of parties is to label a group of like-thinking people into a power block against an opposing power block. This is why parties fracture. "Libertarians for Life." "Log Cabin Republicans." Eventually the definitions of issues requires sub-categories and cults.

How about this? No parties. One man stands up and says what he believes in, and if enough people believe similarly enough, they support him.

It is convenient to be offered a coin toss solution ... a Red candidate or a Blue candidate. But convenience has a price ... at the 7-Eleven (tm) and in Washington, D.C. The price is genuine democratic choice, and mature decision-making.

This is part of why I advocate the disbanding of the very office of President. Let the public send localized representative to a congress of leaders, let them hash out laws and let the supreme Court keep an eye on the Constitutionality of their work, and stop the Popularity Contest/Beauty Pageant of the fixed presidential races.

Party politics is an atavistic hold-over from the 16th century, if not before.

Supposing there are no parties. Voters are still required to be registered (although not by party as is too often the case in some states), to be citizens, etc. I cannot fathom how the usual restrictions on voting (age, citizenship, residency, etc.) are insufficient in a no-party system.

The only purpose of political parties is to convert one-person-one-vote to party conflict. Rather than individuals making up their minds on who shall lead, they divert their attention to supporting a loose confederation of like-minded types who nominate candidates (and spend a lot of time and money maintaining the party coffers. Parties produce nothing.

If Tom steps up to run for office and states his case, Clark can vote for or against him, contribute (or not) to his campaign, etc., regardless of classification. Mary wants to run for a different office, and has many views similar to Tom's. Rather than form a party so Tom and Clark and Mary can all use shorthand to identify themselves as "Red," Tom simply says, "Mary is my kind of candidate. If you like me, you should also vote for her."

Membership in a party is not the requisite for contributing to the national suffrage ... being a citizen of the nation is sufficient.

I am sorry most American voters have no alpha-male mammal upon which to hang their hopes, and to look toward for decision-making. Me, I don't need a "boss" in town, in the state or in Washington, D.C. who will stand up to the atavistic, paternalistic heads of foreign states. If enough people's representatives get the message that the U.S. wants to send troops to the Sudan, then Congress should be capable of drafting the resolution to send troops to the Sudan, and Cc the leaders of Sudan and other related countries. No president necessary for that.

The capacity for the electorate to make sound decisions is not the criterion for their voting. For better or for worse, it is citizenship which grants Americans the right to make any damn fool decision they choose, and if enough of them make bad decisions and the country fails ... why that's natural selection, isn't it?

But I suspect that, not only will a people who are allowed genuine freedom of choice, action and association learn to operate in that freedom fairly wisely, I believe that the diversionary policies (such as Presidents and Parties) work contrary to true democratic function.

I do not trust the media-stupified majority of American voters to make particularly sound decisions because they have insufficient information to go on. But it isn't MY call as to who is or is not smart enough, well enough educated or connected enough to guess right. The child on the bicycle will NEVER, EVER learn to ride the thing until the alleged adults release their supporting grip on the contraption and allow the shockingly resilient youngsters to bust their knees open a few times. Learning without pain or effort is not possible. Let the voters screw up a few free, uncluttered elections and feel the sting of regret, the bruises of folly.

Robert Heinlein once wrote, "You live and learn ... or you don't live long." What is true of individuals is ultimately true of associations and nations. The artificial life-support of well-meaning baby-sitters only prolongs the death of the patient. If, when the external assistance is removed, the patient survives, I believe the patient will be stronger than before.

Of course, most self-titled humanists have a much dimmer view of mankind than I do, which is a dismal irony to me.