It's inconceivable to me that in these serious times we have elected such unserious people to lead us. No, not George Bush. The President has many flaws and has made many mistakes, but being unserious certainly is not one of them. The Congress, however, is filled with adolescents playing games. On Wednesday night they had a sleep-over at the capitol, where they spent their time between cake and ice cream debating yet another symbolic "get out of Iraq" bill. The legislation wasn't real -- it had no chance of passing and was riddled with caveats and loopholes -- but it again showed that in the halls of Congress, leadership is about pandering and positioning. It's almost enough to make you want to move to Europe. Almost.

I can't help but think that we've entered a new, post-democracy age. Some would argue that with the explosion in technology, media coverage and the primacy of polling, that we've actually become more democratic as a system. I think its just the opposite. Our system isn't designed to be a direct democracy based on polling. We have a process where our elected officials in Congress are supposed to represent us -- not by parroting the latest polls, but by acting in our best interests. Often, that isn't the most popular position. You see, it may come as a shock to some, but the Founding Father's understood that the public wouldn't be in the best position to make judgements on the myriad of issues that the nation would confront. This is even more true today, when we face exceedingly complex challenges both at home and abroad. So, we elect people to the Congress to analyze, evaluate, process and decide for us. Their duty is not to swing with the wind; their job is to lead.

Unfortunately, our democracy isn't working now. Our politicians preen for the camera, issue endless soundbites and do very little in the way of leading. It's a popularity contest to appeal to the lowest common denominator -- the preservation of power and privilege. Their power and privilege. It seems to matter little what the facts are, or what is truly best for the nation. What's best for themselves is all that matters now. Its a democracy of one.

I'm reading a very interesting book at the moment called "Troublesome Young Men" by Lynne Olson. It's the story of the battle of the anti-appeasement forces in England during the late 1930s. Many may know of the failure of Neville Chamberlain to deal with Hitler prior to the start of World War Two. But few may know that the appeasement forces ran deep in the British Parliament and among the public, who wanted to avoid war so badly that they allowed themselves to be sucked into a delusion -- that Hitler wasn't the evil menace that the evidence clearly showed him to be. It was the wishful thinking of the idealist -- who believed in the essential goodness of the Nazis and the notion that Hitler was also interested in peace. It was the lonely voice of Churchill and a few courageous others who remained realists, imploring England to wake up and resist the temptation to continue sleeping while the Nazi's rolled through Europe.

I see many parallels to today. I believe we are being led in Congress by those who don't have the courage (or good sense) to lead -- who seek appeasement, and who fail to understand that we are in the midst of a titanic struggle for the future. Those who wish to leave Iraq to founder don't believe that we are fighting the enemy there instead of here, and don't see our defeat (which, no matter how you parse it, is how the enemy will interpret our withdrawal) as a grave risk to our security. They live in a fantasy world of Chamberlain-like proportions. And 2008 is just around the corner.

So, where is our Winston Churchill? Where is our Robert Boothby? Our Leo Amery? Where are our troublesome young men who will oppose appeasement and alert the public to the dangers we face?

Where, indeed?