“Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. Government is force; like fire it is a dangerous servant — and a fearful master.” George Washington

Anyone who believes they have it all figured out and that people with opposing viewpoints are fools seems have to missed history's repeated lesson: we never have it all figured out, and there are often / usually grains of truth in any opposing opinion.

No matter what anyone once thought (as far as I know), the sun never traveled around the earth. And it was never a good idea to use mercury as a medicine. But authorities insisted on both of these in the past; these and thousands of other errors have been proven wrong through the years.

Which is why I think the continual political battle between the left and right spectra is so infantile (and/or just driven by greed and personal agendas), and why my preference is always to ask questions of any point of view, including my own. This is also why I like the idea of freedom to live and think as you please as long as you're not interfering with the rights of others; and thus why I'm friendly to (though not an adherent to) the Libertarian ideal of non-government interference.

But it's terribly ironic for me to find a Libertarian wanting to use the force of government against a private organization in order to, somehow, promote freedom. Despite the fact that I like Gary Johnson and his willingness to discuss political matters that the right and left tend to avoid, here's his effort to use government force for his own agenda:

(The banner links to the site if you want to learn more.)

In short, the "Our America Initiative" wants to sue "the private Commission on Presidential Debates, created in 1987 by the Democratic and Republican parties" so that the presidential debates are required to include any candidate "who is 1) qualified to be President under the Constitution and 2) has qualified for enough states' ballots to receive at least 50% of the Electoral College votes." (Both quotes from the page linked to above.)

I don't know how the presidential debates are funded, but if this is a private venture not paid for by the government, and the TV stations that air it are private ventures, why would a Libertarian believe the government should force it to include people not desired by the private organizations?

Sure, if it's not right for the government to play sides, then it shouldn't fund the debates. So if it does, that could be addressed. And just as the FTC regulates any industry to prevent deceptive advertising practices, maybe it should demand some statement be shown before each segment of a televised / radio debate: "This is a privately funded debate and may not represent the views of all eligible candidates for president."

Then, rather than suing private organizations to include everyone, non-included candidates could spend that money on reaching people through other private media, like YouTube or Netflix. People are increasingly looking elsewhere for the information; why not look to a world that wants change (i.e., the non-traditional media world) with a message of change?

I believe change is necessary, and I don't believe most of our current politicians are seeking the serious change needed. But I also don't believe that we create that change through the same tired tactics used by everyone already, like suing anyone who doesn't do things your way. Change has to come from the people -- not only from their desire for change, but from them becoming a force of their own for change. Only then is it likely to filter to the top, and we should notice from history that when people do become forces for change, change does occur. It might be slow to start. It might take a long time fully take shape, and the morphing might have ugly stages. But it does happen. So what kind of change should we be pushing for, starting inside ourselves?

As the nation preps for tonight's State of the Union address by President Obama (some preparing, no doubt, by not caring), I think it's interesting to look at this investigation into the language of the State of the Union address since its beginning with George Washington.

I encourage you to visit the link and take a look -- it's interactive, so you can see which presidents spoke on which terms more often, or look at the popularity of these terms over time.

Some of the highlights I found most interesting:

• The word "Americans" looks like it was first used in a State of the Union by Thomas Jefferson, but it was rarely used by any president until FDR. Since then, and especially since Lyndon Johnson, it's been used often.
  
  
• "Budget" wasn't really used until Woodrow Wilson, who oversaw the institution of the Federal Reserve and income tax. Since then, it's been increasingly discussed. Looks like the talks must have been how to increase the budget. And for some reason "budget" has become less discussed by recent presidents, so probably we've fixed the problem. (The image comes from the above "The Atlantic" article overlaid by the Federal debt since 1940.)

• Reagan used the words "God" and "freedom" more than any other president. He also presided over the start of our ballooning national debt.
  
  
• And perhaps most telling of all ... the word "Constitution" was used often in the early years of our nation. James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson -- presidents before and after Lincoln -- used the term far more than any others in their States of the Union. Lincoln used it hardly at all compared to other presidents before his time. And no wonder, since his whole presidency faced questionable decisions under the Constitution. After Andrew Johnson, its use almost immediately dwindled. It looks like George H. W. Bush was the first not to mention it at all. But that's ok -- it's just a piece of paper.

So did you check out "The Atlantic" article and play with the words? What did you find most interesting or telling?