Apparently Glenn Beck and I can agree on one thing.

So, look, I'm going to be entirely honest here. Until about thirty minutes ago, I didn't have any idea who Glenn Beck was.

I read an article by him and connected on a very deep level with him.

I'd heard the name and all, but it didn't strike a "Democrat" or "Republican" chord with me. But, see, this is what's nice about my generation, all I had to do was type his name into Google, and within a second I had his entire life story. Every single controversial statement, every viewpoint, every circumstance, was sitting in front of me in the form of a wikipedia article.

So I read it. Pro life, pro war in Iraq, anti gun control.

Yikes.

Did I really agree with this guy? He seems awful creepy.

Well, before I pass judgement, let me show you the article.

It's called "The $53 trillion asteroid" LINK: http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/26/beck.deficit/index.html

I'll admit, it doesn't touch on anything other than the economy, and I'm no economic scholar, but it says some important things.

It suggests that in just a few years our economy is going to fall apart. That scared me. It used an asteroid analogy, which as an 18 year old, really got to me.

So this guy, Glenn, and I obviously disagree on a lot of things, but we agree that a couple things in our economy don't add up, and someone's going to have to pay for that.

...Ahem, right guys?

...Me?

...Yeah.

So, rarely do I say this, but maybe, in this particular isolated case, it's time we remember that there are other issues, issues that don't involve military quagmires or sex scandals. And maybe we should listen to what this conservative has to say.

That actually makes me pretty happy, though. To know that there are still things that Republicans and Democrats can agree on. That there are still issues to tackle together, as a country, as Americans. Keeping in mind of course, that as I say that, I stare down an asterioid coming directly towards me.

We wouldn't be Americans if we didn't tackle the hard stuff. But we won't be Americans if we value ourselves above the other half of the country. The Democrat-Republican relationship is a symbiotic one. And that's something we need to remember even when this hellish war reaches it's apex. Because eventually, in a best case scenario, one day this country will return to "normal", and when that happens, the dust will settle, and we'll have to remember what "American" really is.

I guess when you're 18, the "experience" line just doesn't hold water.

Everyone's been throwing around "experience" like it's the holy grail of the presidency, but I've got a few questions as to the viability of that campaign strategy.

See, maybe it's because I'm 18, and maybe it's because I haven't been properly disillusioned with our country's political system, but I can't help but cringe every time Senator Clinton brings up "experience".

Experience implies this is some sort of carpentry job. The kind one only gets better at as time goes on. The presidency, therefore by it's very nature, excludes new thinking and spirited initiative, instead leaving a bulking, slow motion train wreck of legislation where there should be world changing going on.

Our greatest presidents, both Republican and Democrat (and Whig and Federalist, etc) were not the "experienced" ones, but the strong ones.

George Washington's only experience when he took office was leading troops. He took office only to raise morale, and left pretty quickly afterwords, yet he dictated some policies that have completely shaped the backbone of our country.

Likewise, Abe Lincoln was many things when he entered office in 1861, but I'm not too sure "experienced" was one of them. He had never been married to a president (as far as we know) and yet he still somehow managed to preserve the union (okay, so it's more complicated than that, but I think we can all agree he was a pretty fantastic
president).

FDR's experience? Governor of New York and Secretary of the Navy. Kennedy's? Well, he was in the military for a bit and served in Congress for a long time. Neither man had the first hand executive branch experience that only the president's wife could attain. (Which begs the question of precisely how much experience the first lady even has...)

If you voted on a platform of experience, instead of electing John F. Kennedy in 1960, we would have elected Hubert Humphrey.

Or, if we had voted for experience in 1935, James A. Reed or John N. Garner would have been elected rather than FDR.

How would they have handled World War II?

The notion that "experienced" candidates are required is dangerous because it excludes so, so, much. It excludes revolution and revision. It excludes new solutions and hope. It excludes any notion that we can radically change the world for the better. Something Americans have been known to do before, and could do again, should we elect the proper person to office.

The following sentence might put Hillary and I on bad terms, but you can't teach an old dog new tricks.

The presidency is whatever the candidate brings to it. If he or she brings mediocracy and compromise, then expect nothing less. However, if a candidate promises to bring a new age in politics, one in which neither Democrat nor Republican is the focus, but instead American, then expect greatness.

If you vote mildly, expect mediocracy.