I agree with some of what you are saying - politicians have a more difficult job if they actually look to accomplish much of anything. However, you refer to them as "leaders." I don't think that the majority of our politicians aspire to lead. I think they aspire to be elected and then re-elected. In order to do so, they appeal to the lowest common denominator of sound bites and catch phrases, which, in turn, are aimed not at the select few who watch Congress on CSPAN, but rather the masses who will elect (or re-elect) them.
I am surprised that you appear to think that the masses are well informed these days as to the major political issues. I would agree that the voter who wishes to learn about his/her candidates and their positions on certain topics has the ability to do so with access to the Internet. I don't think most do. Some don't even have access to the Internet or CSpan. Most who do certainly don't use it to be brought up to speed on the major political issues of the day. By way of example - look at the number of posts on this board compared to the Pit or the Sports Board.
In my opinion, too many cast votes with no information about what or who they are voting for, other than what they have been told by Rush, Hannity, Olbermann or some other talking head, or, much worse, what they have been told by their friends or co-workers, or, much, much, worse, just by showing up and taking a shot in the dark.
Similarly, if people cannot read, or cannot pass a basic civics test, or cannot demonstrate any ability whatsoever to begin to comprehend simple political concepts, in my opinion, that person is not fit to vote. Undoubtedly, that is not the law here, and when we did have voting restrictions they were abused, largely to the detriment of minorities. That would be a major concern should voter-competency tests be re-instituted in any way. I just happen to think that the risk of those injustices is a better option than the obvious injustices that occur with the current system of allowing any non-felon to vote.
