I have always been personally intrigued by Kucinich's idea of establishing a Department of Peace. To me, having an institute that would study the conditions under which peace flourishes seems very clear and level-headed especially when we live in an age in which leaders of all stripes are attempting to address an ideological conflict even though they may fail to comprehend its social, political and religious roots.

But having such a cabinet-level agency unfortunately is not within the political culture of Americans. Some are simply unwilling to accept the idea because it is not within our national consciousness, or within the scope of what we would deem appropriate for the political system to address.

Others are more forthright, and more fallacious, in their arguments against such an agency. When one small Minnesota town unanimously passed a council resolution endorsing the idea, one resident said,

It is very plausible in contemporary America to hear such an utterance, and that is what is so dispiriting about the climate here. When genuinely good solutions are offered to extremely complex problems, they are often rejected because they do not fall within the bounds of what American would like to consider acceptable. In no way am I saying that a Kucinich administration would be the end-all and be-all answer to America's problems. But I am saying that it may be worth it to devote some attention to a candidate who is clearly far from the so-called mainstream but nevertheless proposes rational and logical ideas for the future./p>

I suppose that the exception to my frustration is Ron Paul, whose mastery of Internet campaigning has actually allowed him to surmount the barrier to national recognition at which many qualified candidates stumble. And it is easy to understand why there is such a fascination with Paul given that his libertarian message appeals to an interestingly wide swath of the electorate after the chaos and incompetence of the often over-reaching Bush administration. But this discontent is not sufficient reason to get behind someone who happens to have an interesting message.

In Kucinich's case, the message is perhaps the best and most clearly logical for the future, yet Kucinich will be forced to drop out since the themes of his campaign do not fit with what the country would like to hear. This is where this is a contrast between Paul and Kucinich - the former preaches to the country what it would like to hear whether or not libertarianism is a smart idea for the near future, while the latter operates significantly outside of the mainstream even though his policy proposals are sound (to me, at least).

This is an unfortunate paradox. The candidate with the most innovative ideas to tackle global challenges is forced to drop out of the race, while those with decidedly less bold initiatives steal the spotlight solely on the basis of prior recognition and familiarity with the electorate. I do not foresee a change in the near future, but I do hope that at some point our political culture could widen to accommodate ideas that are genuine and legitimate, even if they are not normally part of our political discourse.