It is strange to watch this election begin.

Seeing that the first votes of the 2016 election

season have been cast, I find it appropriate to write a little bit about my opinions on the future of
the US as it pertains to the issues at hand. As we move into the fervor of the primary elections, I
cant help but think that the general electorate of this country is confused about its choices in the
coming months.
In my mind, 2016 will undoubtedly be a decisive year for the future of humanity. How
can anyone conclude otherwise when the results of this years election will more or less
determine the worlds ability to combat climate change? When I think about what the most
important voting issue for this year is, I am strongly inclined to say that climate change must
assume that status. Strong policies against climate change are the first prerequisite for any viable
candidate in my view.
Whenever I discuss issues with my conservative friends, whether that issue be climate
change or income inequality, I can usually get them to concede that we do in fact have an issue in
front of us. The major differences between us, however, are not about acknowledging the
existence of the problem, but instead about the solutions. I will leave income inequality aside at
this point because I have committed to reevaluating my opinions on several economic issues.
Within the context of this particular writing, though, I will absolutely address the issue of climate
change.
Most conservatives who agree that at least something has to be done to solve our climate
problems subscribe to the idea that handing the power over to the free market will eventually
solve the problem. This, as I see it, is a dangerous assumption to make. First of all, free market
principles as libertarians imagine them are scarcely ever present, and to my knowledge have
never been. While this does not discredit the theory itself, it certainly raises questions about the
effectiveness of a free market solution. Even if we allow conservatives to say that a free market
would eventually solve the problem on its own without government intervention, we are not
working with a significant amount of wiggle room when it comes to time. This is an existential
threat that will be irreversible if swift action is not forcibly taken very soon. Free market
solutions are quite simply too soft-handed to accomplish anything within the space of time that
we have. The only alternative that I have heard is a heavy-handed government policy.
Now, climate change aside, there is another existential threat to the USthe democracy
deficiency. At risk of sounding like a broken mixtape of Bernie Sanders campaign taglines, our
current campaign finance system is one of the most disgusting distortions of democracy that I
can think of. Democracy necessitates equality. No one voice should be greater than another
when it comes to making decisions about the country. Obviously, electing representatives is
already a concession to non-democratic principles because it creates a barrier between the will of
the people and the law of the land. This, however, is not the topic of this writing. Instead, I will
operate under the assumption that representative democracy is the best form of democracy, and I
dont think that this is a shaky premise, either.
The fundamental issue with money in politics is that it automatically means that wealth
acts as a megaphone for the wealthiest members of society, which is not actually political
equality, last time I checked. I dont know how anyone can properly defend money as a

legitimate form of free speech; I should not have 100 times as much influence as Tommy
because I have a $100 bill and Tommy only has $1. The first problem is that this form of free
speech does not take into account how that money was accumulated, so it is not inherently
meritocratic. The second issue is that the desires of the rich will be disproportionately heard in
political discourse. That is oligarchy, not democracy. Defending a corrupt campaign finance
system is the same as defending oligarchy, which is not something that most people would ever
want to do. This is all very obvious, and I am frankly surprised that a huge portion of this
country dont see the issue that way.
Even beyond campaign finance, I have an extreme issue with our current system of
government anyway. I am strongly in favor of a Parliamentary-style democracy, where the heads
of government are not elected in a winner-takes-all election. I think opening the door for
alternative parties to debate the issues is critical for our future. Right now, we live in a quasisingle-party state because both establishment parties more or less support different sides of the
same coin, namely corporatist oligarchy. They may have different opinions about certain issues,
but they are both fundamentally the same. Neither establishment party (and there are currently
no other parties anyway) honestly wants to defend democracy or pass effective legislation or
propose anything significant for our countrys wellbeing.
The horseshoe theory of politics looks at the political spectrum not as a line, but as a
horseshoe as the name would suggest. The basic principle of the theory is that the extremes of
both sides are actually closer to each other than the moderate positions on either side. Put
another way, the populist wing of both poles are rather similar in their basic assumptions, but
only really differ on the method of achieving their goals. Now, I have respect for some
libertarians because they actually recognize the fact that the establishment is basically just a
watered-down version of bad, and this description works equally well for both sides of the
spectrum.
The point I am trying to make is this: The United States will have to decide this year what
it wants to look like as we proceed into the meat of the 21st century. We will have to decide how
much we actually care about political equality and democracy, how much we really care about
comprehensive policies to address real issues, and how much we really care about our standing
in history. The first issue should not be difficult; we may disagree on the benefits of economic
inequalities, but surely nobody can disagree that political and social inequality are bad things.
We need to fix this very soon or risk losing any chance of ever doing anything. The second issue
is not about coming up with bipartisan solutions necessarily, because that tends to lead to
monstrous policies like ObamaCare, which is basically the child of a pig and a toad mixed in a
blender. The toad and the pig might not be that bad on their own (even though one may be
clearly better than the other), but together they are just disastrous. Instead, we need an
alternative party that will be able to recognize that sometimes the best policy is a totally radical
one. Why not overhaul a failing educational system? Why not overhaul a failing democracy?
Why not overhaul a failing regulatory system? Why not propose real solutions to immigration
issues or abortion or institutionalized racism? These things will require that both sides be open
to the others ideas. We have to have real debates about what is the best solution for each of our
separate problems. I have hope in my generation that we can do this. I see brilliant people

capable of admitting when they are wrong and standing firm when they know they are right. But
of course, none of this is actually going to be accomplished under our current system. Bernie is
right: We do need a political revolution, and young people need to be a part of that.