It's true. We really do have the government we deserve. Unfortunately, many voters, especially young voters, became disheartened after Obama proved to be as corrupt as his predecessors and failed to deliver on any of his promises. A recent poll indicates that almost 80% now regret having supported his candidacy. What they now need to realize is that this isn't the time to walk away and wash their hands of politics. They have to come back and help clean up the mess that they helped to make or they truly deserve this government and its consequences.

Alexis Charles Henri Clérel de Tocqueville, a French political thinker and historian, famous for his work Democracy in America, is generally credited with first observing that “people have the government they deserve”. It doesn't really matter. I'm taking credit for its broader interpretation. De Tocqueville made what I see as a fatal flaw. He added the qualifier “...in a democracy.” I believe that everyone has precisely the government that they deserve regardless of the fact that it is a democracy or any other form of government. My belief is founded in my trust of the Declaration of Independence which states...

“...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Thus, if any people live under any form of oppression or tyranny, they have the same rights as we have every election day. Even though they lack the right to throw off their government at the ballot box, they may throw it off as our Founders did.

So, we made a mistake the last few times we voted. Is that any reason to surrender to tyranny?

Don't blame the government. Remember, we voted for it. Don't blame the politicians. They are simply responding to our wishes. They promise whatever we want to hear to gain our votes. If they break those promises it's only because we give them permission. How? We reelect them even after they break them.

So, who do we blame?

Well, you can begin with your local school board. Ask them, why didn't I hear of de Tocqueville before reading this blog? He was always mentioned in civics class. What's that you ask? It's the lesson where students learned how to be better citizens, to vote more intelligently, and to revere their condition as free citizens. Also, ask the school board why they allow teachers to encourage their students to revile and vilify America. That too has changed in modern times.

You can also blame American journalism. If citizens were truly aware of what has been happening, few if any of our current incumbents in Congress and state houses as well as the White House would be there. Instead, American journalists have become propagandists for career politicians and we have suffered the consequences.

It may just be that we can thank our good fortune that we have come to the precipice of the economic and political ruin at which we find ourselves today. Staring into its abysmal depths, there are few who require any proof of my assertions. My case is prima facie, true on the face of it. We need only now agree to work together to fix it. Most of all, we need the young to learn from our mistakes. Don't walk away in disgust as I did so many years ago. Roll up your sleeves and help me fix what I have broken.

I've enjoyed following Brooke McEldowney's animation of Shakespeare's classic tale of romance and tragedy, Romeo and Juliet, in his comic strip “Pigborn”. As I mentioned in an earlier post, it is difficult to appreciate a play by simply reading its script. Actors, even cartoon actors, provide context to make the story more accessible to us common folk.

By coincidence, President Obama unveiled MyRA just as McEldowney's version of the play reached the climatic moment when Romeo attempts to intervene in a sword fight between his kinsman, Mercutio, and Juliet's kinsman, Tybalt. Despite his good intentions, Romeo's interference causes the death of Mercutio. This is the event that leads to the story's tragic ending.

Unintended consequences are rarely good. For example, the Affordable Health Care Act (ACA) may have been crafted by some with the best of intentions, but it is coming apart at the seams despite the President's best efforts to patch and delay it. Not only is the health insurance industry unraveling, but also health care providers are abandoning their practices or looking for greener pastures in other nations, and the opposition to the ACA smells blood in the water.

Some are turning on the proponents of Obamacare claiming that they must have foreseen the consequences of this legislation and, thus, intended its harmful results. I am more generous. I believe them to be simply guilty of poor problem solving.

This same lack of skill is evident in the President's latest proposal to provide wage earners with a new program for their retirement savings, MyRA. You say you're not familiar with it? Allow me to summarize. Under this plan, Americans would be permitted to shield their retirement savings in tax exempt government bonds. Although the yields would be small, these bonds would be backed by the full faith and credit of the United States Government.

The President's proposal reminds me of the tale of the farmer who gave his seed corn to a crow on the promise that it would fly the seeds beyond the reach of the mice. I'll let you figure out for yourself, who is the crow and who are the mice in this metaphorical tale, as well as its inevitable conclusion.

There are those who argue that the President doesn't have the authority to create programs on a whim, that he should have waited for Congress to craft a solution. Unfortunately, we know that past performance is the best indicator of future performance and that this Congress has little prospect of crafting any solution to any problem.

Isn't it time to replace them all before the story of our nation reaches the tragic ending that we can so easily perceive looming in the near future?

Once upon a time, I wrote to my Representatives in Congress. I began when I was very young, just fourteen years old. That's right, just 14. I was a new Sea Scout and had become enchanted with the art and science of navigation. I wrote to my Representative and asked for the charts of the Chesapeake Bay where I lived and sailed. Within days, I received a mailing tube full of them, every chart drawn in every scale, covering the Bay from one end to the other. How about that? The experience encouraged me to write again.

I first got the idea when a member of Congress gave our school an American flag that had flown over the U.S Capitol Building. Actually, many flags have flown over the Capitol since the practice of giving them to community organizations began in 1939. The Capitol Architect's office processes more than 100,000 requests from Members of Congress annually. A pair of guards run them up and down the pole all day long. A card is attached to each attesting to its provenance and given to Representatives and Senators to be passed onto constituents.

I don't write so often anymore. My Representatives in Congress are ideologues and we are separated by word processors. Our letters are shuffled into piles: For and Against. Our responses are regurgitated from the bowels of machines. Whereas no member of Congress would not allow the sun to set on an unanswered letter in those halcyon days of long ago, they now depart each day as other machines affix artificial signatures to the day's output.

Certainly, our population has doubled since I was a 14-year old Sea Scout, but so have the number of Representatives in Congress. Are they so busy, so inundated with requests for flags, that they can't answer a letter from a constituent?

Even my beloved President, Ronald Reagan, failed me. When he fired the Air Traffic Controllers for striking, I wrote with an idea to transfer air traffic control from the Federal Aviation Administration, to a private contractor. That way, the cost of air traffic control could be spread among the users (airlines and private pilots) and the FAA could focus on policing the system. It always seemed absurd to me that the same bureau that provided a service policed itself. Apparently, my letter found its way to the stack reserved for those who disagreed with the President's action, and I received the response directed to his opponents. Opponent? Me?

Accessibility is the principal thing that first attracted me to Greg Raths who is running for Congress in California's 45th Congressional District. He began his campaign last year when the declining state of affairs in America moved him to action, even before our current Representative, John Campbell, announced that he wasn't running for reelection. He had a banner printed and began meeting people. He's attended every city council meeting in the district. He's joined civic organizations. He's walked door-to-door. I haven't seen or heard of Greg's two opponents beating down any doors to meet me or my neighbors.

Greg's campaign reminds me of the campaign that brought Richard Lamm to office as governor of Colorado in 1974 when I lived there. He too won against the campaigns of better known, better financed candidates, by walking from one end of the state to the other, making himself accessible.

I can't help but watch Greg with people and think, wouldn't it be nice to know who your Representative is, to at least know his name and what he looks like? Wouldn't it be nice to once again have access to our Representatives so that we can contribute to the effort to help solve our nation's problems? We certainly have enough problems to solve.

Of course I don't expect things to return to the way they were when Abraham Lincoln was President and any citizen could walk into the White House unchallenged and request a meeting. Nor do I expect any member of Congress to dictate a personal answer to every letter as they once did. However, don't you wish you had a candidate who is accessible to you? Why don't you go out and find one? Hopefully, they'll remain accessible once they're elected.

It seems that everyone is easily offended these days, especially on the Internet. Just follow any discussion following a blog posting. Here come the magic words: "liberal", "conservative", "left", "right", "progressive", "reactionary". Wait for it. Here comes the invective. The ad hominem attacks. The name calling. How did honest debate devolve to this sad state of affairs.

So here's the challenge: Describe a candidate in a way that appeals to his constituents while offending the fewest number of people remembering, of course, that some people won't get past the party affiliation without becoming offended. Granted, you won't vote for any candidate based on a catch phrase. You'll want to know more.

You'll want to know where they stand on the issues.

If you can trust them.

If they'll represent you or some special interest.

If they'll succumb to the siren call of career politics or remain one of us.

Okay, we'll deal with all that. However, first we have to catch your eye.

A photograph.

A catchy phrase.

Something to hook you and make you want to learn more.

Without offending you.

How would you describe that candidate? Please take our survey:

Yes, the 2014 election has begun. You can avoid it until the primary. You can avoid it until November. Sooner or later you will face a choice, or ignore it and let someone else make it for you. Isn't that what we've all done in the past, and look where it's gotten us.

Honestly, I don't know if any citizen can best a career politician in a political contest, but we need to find out. We have state houses and a Congress full of career politicians and look what it's gotten us. Obviously, the Affordable Health Care Act isn't affordable. The government jobs and part time employment they've created are poor substitutes for the millions of jobs we've lost. Now, do you really think that reelecting the same career politicians will produce a better result?

I got myself involved in the political process this year for many reasons. First and foremost, I have grandchildren and I'm ashamed that I'm leaving them a far poorer world than the one I inherited. Also, I don't want to again face a choice between dumb and dumber or the lesser of two evils when I cast my ballot this year. Sure, I've done that often enough before, but now there are grandchildren to consider. I hope that, like me, you'll go out and find yourself a better candidate than the career politicians who are clamoring behind the scenes to vie for our votes.

Yes, the clamoring has already begun. You should hear the career politicians in California's 45th Congressional District squealing because a mere citizen has thrown his hat into the ring. “But, it's my turn!” they cry and they have supporters who echo the sentiment.

Here we have two Republicans who have paid their dues. One is a state senator and the other is a county commissioner. They and their supporters truly believe that only professional politicians are qualified to represent We the People. Do we have to believe that just because they do?

Indeed, what are the arguments against sending an ordinary citizen to Washington?

They have no experience. Experience may be a factor when comparing incumbents to challengers. Every new member of Congress reports early to Washington to attend classes in the legislative process. I wonder if they are required to view the Schoolhouse Rock episode of “I'm Just a Bill”. Unfortunately, we have been reelecting incumbents regardless of the fact that their experience consists of voting for bad legislation.

Interestingly, in the campaign that I've joined, the private citizen has more experience in Washington than all of his opponents – Republican, Democrat, et al – combined. He served for three years in the military liaison office at the White House during the Clinton Administration, working on legislation both there and on Capitol Hill. You probably won't be so lucky to find a non-politician like that, but it doesn't matter. Your new Representative or Senator will have plenty of help learning the ropes.

Many career politicians, especially incumbents, use their seniority as an argument against sending novices to state houses and Congress. While it is true that incumbents' seniority entitles them to first consideration for assignment to key legislative committees, the argument fails when we consider that they've used those positions to foist bad laws on us. Also, there is no constitutional basis for committee assignments based on seniority. Maybe, it's time to challenge that.

I hope that you don't sit out another election. Maybe you'll be inspired by our experiment in the California 45th Congressional District. Please feel free to follow along. “Like” our campaign page on Facebook. Bookmark our website.

Better yet, go find your own extraordinary citizen. We'll be happy to help your campaign just as you can help ours.