Completely agreed, except that as more and more moderates become disgusted with the whole process, that vocal minority on both sides is what gets the politicians elected. Rand isn't my preferred candidate either, but I'm not optimistic enough to believe Ron will run again. Whatever the outcome of this year's elections, a storm is brewing. A lot of people have become polarized by the events and rhetoric of the last 15 years or so, and I'm not sure what either party will be able to do to placate the masses.

If utopia were possible, I would throw my support behind it whatever the political philosophy. But Utopia isn't possible. People believe what their experiences and education lead them to believe, and we will always but heads with people who don't see what we feel are "obvious truths". The freedom to disagree and still be heard is one of the fundamental things I feel most people take for granted.

You know, I wouldn't say a utopia is completely impossible, who knows what we'll achieve if the human race lives on long enough, even though it doesn't seem like it, quality of life does get better over long periods over time, why would it stop? Back on topic however, what radicals on the left are getting radical leftist politicians elected however? The current president is a moderate and so was the last dem in office before him. I don't think the US has ever had a radical liberal in office, but neither has there ever been a radical conservative in office, George Bush is rather tame compared to someone like Rand Paul. The political spectrum has become heavily skewed to the right thanks to media engines spreading misinformation and vitriol that turns moderates into socialists and such when that is far from the truth. Don't get me wrong, i'm not insinuating that conservatism is bad or anything like that, but radical political ideology period is bad, and if there was liberal talk radio and cable news persuading a substantial portion of the populace that we need to nationalize large swaths of corporations indiscriminately or something else radical it would be just as bad. It just happens the philanthropists such as Rupert Murdoch saw that conservative news was more profitable and jumped on it. This is the age of information, and spewing toxic information is now inherently damaging to the stability of society.

If anything, I would say that freedom to disagree and have yourself heard is being heavily abused, and everyone knows it. Congress isn't paying attention to the ideas and opinions of the common man because it's worthless compared to the Koch brothers, Buffet, and other individuals with massive lump sums of cash that dwarf any money that the people are able to invest into the issues. I suppose i'm going into what the other thread is discussing, but it's honestly the crux of the problem in the US. The fact that congress is willing to hold the middle class hostage concerning the tax cuts expiring because they want to make sure the rich get them too is a prime example. Fundamentally, no matter how you spin it, the rich are a minority, an infinitely small minority in comparison to practically everyone else, our democracy is distorted and is the only reason radicals of any sort can garner any support in congress.