I have been avoiding the topic of politics on my blog, but I thought I’d express one fairly short little opinion.

I think all Americans would agree that the US is experiencing a wide variety of problems right now and most of us would agree that our government has played a role in creating many of these problems. We tend to disagree regarding the role that the government should play in fixing these problems. Some of us believe that if our government would back off and legislate as little as possible in the next few years, we the people and the free market system will be able to recover and many of the current problems will be eliminated. I think if we tried to eliminate the emotional aspects of our opinions about the two candidates, we would have to admit that both candidates want to address the same problems and that both candidates love their country and are capable and trustworthy enough to accomplish their stated goals. The only differences are really with regard to the specifics of the plans they will use to address the problems. Neither candidate is entirely wrong and neither one is entirely right. I think most of us would agree that if the elected candidate would consider aspects of both plans an even better plan may lay somewhere in between the two plans. In fact, the best plan would most likely be generated by an unbiased panel of non-partisan experts (NOT politicians). So really, in the end we are choosing between two candidates with good intentions who plan to fix a variety of problems that we are all facing. The way I see it, the main question is a philosophical question and that question is whether or not the best plan will err toward minimizing government and allowing us to do as much as possible to help ourselves or whether the best plan will charge the government with making all of the choices on our behalf to fix these problems.