Well you are correct that there are few real leaders, and that the current system is designed around capitalism.
But I'm going to point to my own last post:
Quote:
I truly beleive that civil discourse happens in our political history when an issue arises that causes the public to inform themselves before reacting. At most other times the "public" will sink back into self-chosen apathy to indulge only in the matters of their personal life, rarely pondering the long term picture that is bigger than them.
Given this willfull ignorance by many, would it not be equally valid to say that an active populus that has educated itsef to what needs to get done for now and the future, and has familiarized themselves with the possabilities, is the balance to lobbyists that is currently lacking?
|
See, only half the problem is what your describing. the other half of the equation is a population that is involved in the country's leadership You can have leaders capable of leading, but you still need a population willing to be lead, and get up of their butts.
Your speaking about lobbyists and the possabilities of true representative leadership without taking into account that our current structure is
designed around the apathy of the voter. It didn't start out that way. It got that way because people didn't want to have to expend effort in shaping their country.
The best leader possible still has to get the population to understand that without their active involvement, we slowley begine to fall apart. And it's then that things like lobbyists swoop down from the wings of the stage to whisper into the ears of representatives. Lobbyists are just a symptom of how disconnected people have become towards the idea that they are the government, and that they actually have to get up and participate in running the country.