Author’s note: The election race of 2008 appears to boil down to three main issues: peace, poverty and population concerns. Americans seem to resent the conflict in Iraq, believe in a housing crisis, and are concerned with immigration law. This column is part of an ongoing series rethinking the issues of the 2008 election.

Most of my friends and colleagues will openly discuss their views on various issues surrounding the 2008 election. When asked about their vote for president, however, the most common response I received was “It [the election] is a choice between the lesser of two evils.” As this statement evidences, America may be in need of a presidential revolution.

In his acceptance speech, Obama mimicked this cry for change: “…the change we need doesn’t come from Washington. Change comes to Washington.” But can a senator, who spends much of his time in Washington, really be the outside change America needs?

When shopping for a car, most Americans would never accept having only two choices. The same holds true when buying a house, looking for a life partner, picking a doctor. This is because most Americans understand that with choice comes power. Having options grants Americans the purchasing power to maintain a safe, healthy, and happy life.

If most Americans wouldn’t leave their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness up to two choices, why do they allow one of their most important decisions, their choice of leadership, to be left to only two options?

In a democratic government, political power is supposed to rest on the backs of the people. As Abraham Lincoln so eloquently addressed this ideal in his Gettysburg Address, “…government of the people, by the people, for the people.” The moment, we as Americans, accept the government as is, and cease to struggle to change the way Washington does politics, is the day the American people cease to control their government, and the day that the government gains control over the people.

We have begun accepting our government as is, and in doing so, we have relinquished our ability to improve upon the status quo. The failure of our government and political system is not a failure of leadership. It is a failure of the American people to take personal responsibility for the actions of their government, their well-being and the well-being of their neighbors. Most importantly, it is a failure of the American people to step up to the task of becoming leaders themselves.

I do not believe a senator from Illinois can revolutionize American politics. Only the American people have the capacity to do that, and it will only happen the day they take back the streets rallying for causes, pushing for innovation and calling for personal responsibility.

I leave you with a few questions. How do we inspire innovation? How do we encourage people overcome racial, ethnic and xenophobic fears in order to allow for a greater exchange of wealth, ideals and practices that result in greater equality, understanding, and respect for our fellow human beings? Most importantly, how do we motivate people to take individual responsibility and place the power of governance back in the hands of those it was originally intended for: the commonwealth?

E-mail your thoughts to [email protected].