Let me tell you a familiar story.

There came a time in this nation when ordinary men stood against the most powerful Empire history had ever seen — a time when farmers and landlords, lawyers and paupers, merchants and laborers all rose and defied a King. Under the hail of musket fire, these men saluted the battle standard of Rights and plunged into a doubtful war. And when the smoke cleared on that fateful day at Yorktown, the small league had accomplished the unthinkable: victory.

Then the union paused, set down her bent saber and tattered flag and tried to catch her breath. It was at this time that certain wise men emerged and pointed out that the State needed to be strengthened, holes needed stitching, money needed minting, soldiers needed paying and rule of law needed to be asserted — these were the Facts. The revolution had been fought for Rights, this was undisputable, but more urgent were the Facts, for in a world of nation-states, there must be national government.

After the dead were buried, and the states organized within, the Fathers met and sought to resolve the Facts. From their meeting they emerged with the Constitution and presented it before the assembly of the people and proclaimed, "Behold, this is the government of the people." The People were skeptical at first, but the Fathers made some guarantees of Rights, and then the People acquiesced. It followed that elections were held, and the Fathers were elected. This was satisfactory, because the Fathers had been the authors of the revolution, they had shed their blood for the revolution and now they were the keepers of the revolution. In short, they were elected because they were the revolution, and they had proven themselves in the hearts of all men across the new nation.

Or at least that's the way I've heard the story. On recitation, it sounds more akin to the mythical age of Greece, complete with our own American heroes and battles, than a history of our present Union. Yet, these men that led such an enterprise did exist, and their deeds are passed down to us. But what makes this story all the more enchanting is that, at present, we live in an age of political mediocrity.

In comparison to our past heroes, real or not, I ask: Who are these modern rulers? What sort of creature is the modern politician who claims kinship with those great originals? Why does the thought of placing George Bush, father or son, next to George Washington offend my sensibilities? How did a Congress full of sexual deviants and criminals blunder upon the right to make the laws? What sort of men are you, Mark Green or James Doyle? What are you made of, campaigns and speeches? Certainly not gunpowder and steel. What empires have you defied recently? No, you shoulder the weight of weakness and an uninspiring political system. I'll admit, I haven't been particularly distinguishable myself; granted, in our time, there are few chances left. But that's really the sticking point — if you're not one hell of a hero/philosopher/general, what really makes you more suited for government than me, or any other? Because you have the time and money? And you assemblymen and Senators — how are you more 'representative' than anyone else? Is that even possible?

Have the facts become more important than the rights? No longer do we listen to statesmen that have proven themselves in some capacity in the revolution of rights.

In our time, politicians descend upon districts and states, assemblies and blocks, dividing and conquering the people for parties and power instead of descending upon battalions of grenadiers for the chance to win the rights of others. Precious few are those that appear redeemable to these uninterested eyes of mine. Politics has become a game, where one must join a side and possess a great deal of money to play. The people have been marginalized. To have a voice in government and not be a politician is to vote for a politician. And this is called representation? As if 10,000 men can sufficiently put their trust in one politician.

If we can't start holding our leaders to a higher standard, why not just draw lots? Wouldn't that give us a representative government? Come Nov. 7, will we once again be disappointed at the shuffle of Harvard Law graduates through the offices of the state? What would you do, if you were called upon your state or nation to rule? Do we care enough to try?

Does anybody hear me?

Cullen Haselby ([email protected]) is a freshman majoring in mathematics.