Politics isn’t a “too-human enterprise”, it’s a subsystem that evolved within a system of money use. Humans evolved to cooperate and act out of empathy. Research supports this. Money use and the systems built on it inhibit this adaptive trait.

Why do we believe we need to use money? Because of concepts. Why do we believe in concepts? Because we’re confused. The most intelligent, most confused species on the planet. We’re the only species that uses money and we’re destroying our life support system. Why does the world seem so screwed up? Because it is, because we use money.

Churchill, like most of us who have lived within this money-based system, conflated government with politics. It’s not possible to “get the money out of politics”, as so many like to advocate, since politics is inherently money-based. Government could exist with far less politics (religious, ethnic, and other influences would likely continue) if we didn’t use money, and it would actually serve people rather than profit-oriented enterprises.

I’d rather not muddle while Rome burns, so I’m talking about this with as many people as possible.

Steve, I’m sorry that you are so disillusioned. Politics is indeed a flawed and too-human enterprise, but we must muddle on the best we can. Since we are into quotes in this thread, here is this one from Winston Churchill.

“No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.”

Although perhaps Mr. Rapundalo believes that he, personally, cannot contend in a civil manner with people who do not share his views, there are plenty of other people who can. Perhaps he should yield to one of them.

Did I mention that intentional mis-representation of events, votes, and behavior in an election may erode public faith in our institutions of government?

Per the 5th Avenue 7: if Mr. Rapundalo really wanted to save those houses, all he had to do was support the creation of the Germantown Historic District. Methinks he cries crocodile tears over them.

For those who have forgotten, I reviewed the Elhady-Higgins race. [link]

Since I got drawn in to comment, I’d like to remark that Mr. Rapundalo is daring in his comparison of Ann Arbor in the 90s vs. today. He asks us the old Reagan question: “Are you better off today than (that time)?”

Jane Lumm and I differed then on policy issues and I expect that I won’t agree with all of her positions in the future. But even when we were vigorously opposing each other on some significant solid waste issues (I was on the Solid Waste Commission), she was always civil (even pleasant), data- and issue-oriented, and entirely collegial. I don’t agree with Mr. Rapundalo’s apparent stance that a council should move in lock-step in order to be effective. I believe that we all benefit from informed discussion on our governing bodies. Let the best, or at least most skillfully defended, policies win.

Jane Lumm has an uphill struggle running as an independent as Hatim Elhady did in 2009, when he collected only 36% of the vote against a somewhat unpopular Marcia Higgins.

However, I believe she can beat Steve Rapundalo, but it will be a close race. That will be due to her name recognition as a prior member of City Council and her extensive volunteer work in the community.