Furthermore, one often hears how often life was better and simpler in the “good ole days” and while that may seem to be true to some individuals I would argue that as a whole the quality is about the same. While developments in society often bring further complications and/or problems to the table, they often bring benefits as well. To some, the negatives outweigh the positives, to others the opposite is true but in the end I wouldn’t be surprised if the pioneers felt just as much nostalgia for certain aspects of the past as we do today. There are indeed a great many problems today and that it may seem like the world is going to Hell in a hand-basket, but it sure as hell also felt that way during the Vietnam era, Great Depression, and Civil War as well. This is just another in a series of down times that break-up the otherwise positive history of the U.S.

Also, while it might be easy to divide the political spectrum into “Conservatives”, “Liberals”, and a myriad of other political belief systems, it would seem that in this age of globalization most party affiliations are aesthetic and have little substantive difference. Look at what happened to McCain in 2008. He ran on a platform of moderation during the primary but once nominated he suddenly became a hard-line neocon over night. Why? Well, beyond the campaign trail rhetoric Democrat and Republican presidents are usually practically the same. If you were to judge Obama solely on what he has done in office, most would have trouble affiliating him with a party. Yes, that even includes “ObamaCare”. Just re-watch all the old c-span coverage of the Clinton presidency trying to pass healthcare reform. What did it fail then? Newt Gingrich as Speaker of the House and fellow Republicans argued that the public option was (justifiably) socialistic and the only constitutional form of health reform would involve and individual mandate. Romney recently called Gingrich out on this during one of the Republican debates (the one before last I believe). The only reason they oppose it now is because it provides good political fodder against the Democrats. Conversely, if you were to judge Bush junior’s presidency solely by its actions you would have a similar problem. Especially with NCLB (No Child Left Behind) which is, more or less, the epitome of a “socialistic” program. Why no outrage by the media or public at large? Democrats are notoriously incompetent at mounting effective political offensives.

In closing, while I believe these dialogues to be constructive and a net positive for all involved, the problems being discussed often are far more complicated and run much deeper than most really care to grapple with. If you want to get involved in politics, don’t bother with the media and just study history instead; there is a reason why it is the sister discipline of political science.