The “economic crisis” and the “war in Afghanistan” are both threats to the US economy. What is the “US Economy” to the new world that has discovered greed is not exclusively an American sin?

Any society that is not driven by a common economic goal is going to flounder, economically. And one that pursues capitalism or communism too successfully will suffer after success. In this TED talk, Geoff Mulgan talks about the need for capitalism to adopt caring in the new world.

Where capitalism benefits risk takers, communism fosters creativity.

If a society does not take risks with creativity continuously, then relevant winners are not found. Hence the success of capitalism. Democracy serves us by proving change. It is not the cheapest way to determine when it is time for change, but it is indicative of common will.

Whether it is optimal is another question and one best left unexplored. When the Government starts to plan change of government, inevitably human nature steps in and someone gets addicted to dominating everyone else.

But the service of democracy is to favour the other side of the equation. Concentrate on improving the health and education of the people comprising the country, and then make them cycle downhill as fast as they can with more skill. Then prepare for the next hill.

Democracy has a problem. It reacts to history, rather than what is needed. The making of history is the way it is because we turn it into a duality (which is why fair systems, e.g. proportional representation, is so unpopular with the politicians). A duality means winning half the time. If there were five major parties, proposing not just red and blue, but green, white and yellow as well – there comes a point where the “popular mandate” becomes meaningless.

We worship the wrong god. Democracy is not what makes politics work, it is what makes despotism fail.

The “will of the people” is a popular choice, and is usually not the correct choice. It is therefore little more than fiction. Lots of people flock to see terrible movies. It does not improve the inherent value of the art.

Popularism as political muscle is dangerous. The best leaders are not self aggrandizing super humans. Their political views are well formed and with them they can see the (totally right/utterly wrong) approach and from debate, the Government could work out which rhetoric fits the circumstances and overrule the other. Why crossing the floor is such a crime in FPP (first past the post) non-proportional electorates is that a government is defined as a continuous right to control power. Is that the best way?

Probably a non-partisan senate, where candidates are promoted to office (i.e. sponsored) by parties, but need not remain loyal to the party on every vote.

A more elastic form of party politics could mean that governments evolve with the best people from both sides but decisions are weighed for their actual effect rather than each side trying to beat the other with rhetoric.

A more representative and responsive democracy needs to evolve. The constant polling and referendums of the broad population does not produce better answers, just commonly held opinions.

We are smart enough to cause all these problems, we are smart enough to solve them and create more complex ones.