Dear Mr. President, the following is a message I long to hear from you as this nation’s leader. It’s not a left or right-leaning manifesto, it’s how I believe you must lead a generation that cares about its future and the legacy it leaves behind. Not to sound pushy, but the content is urgent, so I’d ask you to deliver this speech as soon as your tech team can upload it to the nearest teleprompter:

“My fellow Americans, as your President, I feel the need to do something that politicians like me have failed to do, primarily because it tends to shorten one’s political career. I’m going to tell you the truth about the economy. And I need to warn you, you may not like what I have to say. It’s going to hurt, it’s going to make you anxious, and it’s going to demand more than any of us wish to offer. But Americans don’t run from the truth. As we’ve always done, we must risk the discomfort of honesty should we hope to preserve the nation we inherited from the greatest generation of Americans, whose personal and collective sacrifices generated the freedom and prosperity we’ve squandered.

So, in the spirit of truth-telling, here goes:

We’re broke.

You can dress it up any way you’d like, citing comparative statistics of other developed nations, but the fact is that we’re falling deeper into debt each day, in an uncontrollable and disturbing manner. On Novevember 1, our national debt was $16,221,685,381,838.28, according to the Bureau of the Public Debt. When I was inaugurated, the figure was $10,626,877,048,913.08, an increase of $5,594,808,332,925.20 under my watch, which amounts to an average indebtedness of over $50,000 for every man, woman and child in America. At this rate, we’ll surpass the $20 trillion figure by the end of my second term.

Our wildly expanding and sadly irresponsible trillion-plus dollar deficits have forced us to borrow an unimagineable sum from China–40 cents of every dollar to be tragically exact–and to print money out of thin air to cover what we can’t or won’t borrow.

Let me explain why these actions are so problematic. Our ability to borrow depends upon our credit, out ability to make payments on our debt. And our ability to make payments on our debt is dependant upon a low interest rate, which we’ve been able to secure so far. But when interest rates rise, we won’t be able to borrow money because we can’t afford the new interest rate on top of the ballooning principle and interest payments on our current debt. This means that we’ll be forced to print even more money, which causes every dollar we have to become less and less valuable. This hurts everyone–rich, poor, small businesses and large, and yes, even government. History is littered with failed nations who tried to print their way out of financial calamity, who were crippled by exorbatant inflation rates which brought them to their knees.

I ran against our addiction to deficit spending, criticizing the practice as “unpatriotic” and irresponsible. But as every politician realizes once in office, fixing the problem is easier said than done, and no elected official wants to become the sacrificial lamb who axes the favorite programs of would be voters. Simply put, saving our nation from financial ruin is just not good for job security in Washington D.C.

This is why the Founding Fathers rejected the notion of career politicans who are indebted to their parties and addicted to vocational self preservation at the expense of the country’s future. But now that I’m a “lame duck,” no longer beholden to the whims of voters, the prerogatives of party, and the demands of donors, I wish to end all of that. I wish to do the right thing, even if it causes my popularity to plunge into single digits. You see, I care about my daughters and the future I leave behind for them, and I cannot spend eight years in the White House and do nothing about this problem.

So from this day forward, I will take aim at our debt and deficit as my top priotity, and I will decidedly pursue this at the expense of popularity or party affirmation, because I would leave the office a failure should I do anything less. To be brief yet specific, the following will be the goals of my second term:

1. We will move to pass balanced budget and line item veto amendments to force the federal government to spend within its means, and to ensure that future presidents have both the responsibility and authority to keep federal spending in the black. This will include the mandate to keep our debt at or below 20% of GDP and the requirement that no elected representative in any branch of government will be paid (including salary, benefits, and all expenses) until the government presents a valid and fiscally responsible budget each year.

2. We will propose legislation to reform all major entitlement programs, including social security, medicare, and yes, even Obamacare, to ensure that they meet the needs of the nation without bringing us to our knees. Each program must have a 50-year solvency plan in order to continue to receive funding. We’ll reform these programs with the understanding that no initiative–no matter how beloved or well-intended–is worth accumulating debt to fund, and no American deserves an entitlement for which future Americans must pay. Each generation must carry its own load or, as in the case of the greatest generation, lighten the load for the next generation.

3. As shocking and painful as this sounds, we will have a balanced budget by the end of my second term. I realize that this will slash, downsize, or even do away with many spending initiatives that currently form the framework for much of our economy and government. But frankly, I just can’t trust my successors to do it for me. We’re good at kicking the can ahead to the next guy, but that’s not what my reelection slogan “forward” was intended to mean. I want to be a president that leads, not defers. That’s what you elected and now reelected me to do.

4. I won’t raise taxes until we meet strict standards for fiscal restraint. I have shared, in no uncertain terms, my desire to raise taxes on the wealthiest Americans, but I realize that it’s irresponsible to do so without a demonstrated ability to control spending–it would simply enable our addiction to wasteful spending. Plus, the tax increase that I’ve proposed would generate $60 billion at most, which is a drop in the fiscal bucket and totally irrelevant for solving the real problem of our colossal deficit and debt.

5. You need to take your responsibilities very seriously, both as citizens and voters. You can blame the government all you want for our debt, but it’s you who put us in office and you who remove us from office. It’s you who demand programs, benefits, and entitlements from those you elect, and it’s you who reject candidates who seek to end or reform such programs. In short, you must stop forcing politicians to choose between electability and honesty, and you must do it for the long-term. Any improvements we make in the next several years can be easily undone by a relapse of irresponsible spending. At the end of the day, each American must look in the mirror and ask what kind of nation they want. And if the answer is a nation that spends whatever it takes to provide whatever you demand, then you’ll get what you deserve.

6. This same fiscal discipline must be required from states, many of which have hewn deep trenches of debt with the expectation that the federal government will force other states to bail them out. Each state will be required to maintain a balanced budget, and it will be illegal for a state to compensate for wasteful spending of the past by siphoning funds from its more responsibile neighbors.

7. As many American families endured the financial challenges of recent years, they tightened their belts and made do with less. They adjusted their budgets and lifestyles around their means, and if they refused to do so, they lost everything. They lived responsibily and within their means, which must be the mindset of every American today. A government that seeks to manage its imbalanced budget cannot be viewed as the guaranteed safety net for the wasteful spending and poor decision-making of its citizens. Our future is one of personal responsibility, in which citizens take care of themselves and one another rather than looking to Uncle Sam with a sense of entitlement. The federal government must get its financial house in order, which means that individual citizens, state governments, and corporations must do so as well. We’re in this together, and none of us can rely on someone else to bankroll our own spending.

8. Now the good news. Americans thrive on personal responsibility and sacrifice for the sake of a free and prosperous future. I have great hope in the American worker, family, entrepreneuer, and business leader. In the past we’ve faced great challenges at home and abroad, and we’ve always risen to the occasion. When threatened by Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, we fought two wars in two hemispheres while transforming our economy at home, all in the successful effort of leading the world to victory. The world needs that kind of leadership again. As is the case today, that transformation demanded personal sacrifice from each American, along with personal responsibility. But unlike the totalitarian regimes we defeated, when America demands sacrifice, it does so not to prop up the state, but to release the great power and potential of the individual.

If we do not take decisive measures like the ones I’ve listed above, we will abandon the American dream. Public debt has recently surpassed 100% of our GDP, while many believe that anything above 80% can literally prevent economic growth. Some analysts have said that America’s unfunded liabilities add up to eight times our current national debt, which will almost certainly result in our defaulting on loans, inability to spend on credit, and forcing us into a state of panic that will make the great depression look like the roaring 20′s. As early as 2021, American streets could resemble those of Greece, teaming with rioting citizens who have been denied promised benefits by a government that has no hope of following through. But in America’s case, there is no one to bail us out.

America is the hope of the world. Let’s keep it that way. My fellow Americans, as your president, it’s my job to tell the truth and lead the way. And it’s all of our job to fight this battle. As I said back in 2004, there are no red states; there are no blue states. There are only red, white and blue states, and we must stand together as United States to preserve our future against this common enemy.

God bless you, God bless the United States of America, and God bless the lives of our future citizens, who will either look back at us as another great generation of Americans, or as the generation that squandered American greatness. I hope you’ll join me and join together to make this our finest hour.”

“Give it a rest, Kristi,” Chad moaned as the family minivan idled before an eternally red light, lamenting the latest impasse in which he and his wife had been entrenched all morning. “You spend money like a drunken sailor and won’t stick to our budget, but when I confront you, you explode like it’s my fault. That’s so childish!”

As Kristi fumed in the passenger seat to Chad’s right, she was too upset to realize that they only had time to fire back and forth several more times in the three blocks that remained between their car and the school fundraiser, an event for which they were fifteen minutes late. They’d argued that morning in every room of their house while struggling to get themselves and the kids ready, make breakfast, and cram into the car. Still, she was in no mood to let Chad have the last word. “It’s okay for you to spend thousands on an unbudgeted boat, but if I buy a used lamp at a rummage sale, I need Dr. Chad’s written permission. You’re such a hypocrite.”

Suddenly, the high-pitched voice of a seven-year-old interrupts from the backseat, where Chad and Kristi’s two kids were strapped in tightly. “Will you two stop fighting? You sound like those two guys that are running for president!”

And a little child shall lead them.

Indeed, conflict in marriage often stems from a fairly typical pattern of communication breakdown, which can easily be recognized in politics. We know that marriages can improve their conflict resolution with a little elbow grease, and so it makes good sense to apply some “lessons learned” to the political realm as well. What follows, therefore, are several principles which, when adopted in either marriage or politics, lead to better dialogue, increased mutual respect and understanding, a more effective outcome, and generally happier people.

1) You can be dead right. In marriage and politics, feeling right” is woefully inadequate in producing a positive outcome, and it can easily destroy the relationship. Spouses and politicians can hold to an inflexible and uncompromising position in such a way that places them in isolation from those with whom they would otherwise collaborate. It can undermine their willingness to respectfully engage parties with whom they disagree, and it often leads them to demonize and assassinate the character of the opposition. But being “right” isn’t enough. Healthy individuals honor their personal convictions while engaging in a productive dialogue in which opposing parties and spouses (who also believe that they are right) can get a fair hearing. It’s okay to believe you’re right. But don’t be dead right, or you’ll lose the relationship along with any hope of a positive outcome.

2) Pick a time and place. Most marital conflict happens when tempers flare, with no thought to managing the sensitive issue in the context it deserves. This leads couples to argue in stressful car rides, public places, or late at night when they should be enjoying a bit of sleep (or romance!). This same tendency leads politicians to take shots at opponents through the media or in speeches to like-minded individuals, rather than holding their tongues until they sit down on the committee or task force where the issue can actually be worked out. Such tactics might score points in a mixed martial arts contest, but they diminish people’s willingness to work together, deepen entrenched battle lines, and tend to provoke retaliation. Instead of destroying trust and collegiality before we ever get a chance to deal with an issue calmly, we do ourselves and our opponents a favor by giving the conflict the context and attention it deserves.

3) Try listening first. People tend to listen to those who are willing to listen to them, and they refuse to listen to people who don’t. So spouses and politicians must show a willingness to listen and empathize first in order to gain a hearing. While this principle seems obvious, it’s rarely adopted in marriage or politics, as people are too eager to be heard, score points, and to assert their views.

4) Admit how your side has caused the problem. Credibility is a funny thing. We lose it when we try to appear faultless, and we gain it when we admit our own fallibility. Few marriages work if one or both spouses are unwilling to acknowledge wrongdoing. Politically speaking, with all of the long term challenges that linger because of the decisions, endeavors, or inactivity of both major parties, there is plenty of blame to go around. As with marriage, political discourse should start with how one’s own party has contributed to the problem so that we don’t cling to prior mistakes with a kind of self righteousness that prevents honest and creative thinking.

5) Go back to the beginning. When a marriage is on the rocks, a counselor will often guide couples back to the early days of their relationship in order to remember and reclaim the original feelings and values that brought them together. In politics too, we must also remember and reclaim the aspirations and values that led to America’s founding in order to come together around our commonalities, rather than defining ourselves by divisions that have since evolved. Sadly, those in office are rewarded for partisan behavior and frowned upon for reverting to the “classical statesmanship” that made George Washington the most trusted politician in American history. Unfortunately, it often requires a national crisis for today’s political rivals to embrace one another with the spirit that permeated America’s founding days. But if we can’t reclaim the momentum generated by those formative years, we’re left in the conflicted foxholes of our present day divisions.

Matthew M. Anderson envisioned the story in “Running Mate”, his debut novel, during the 2008 presidential election. A former history teacher and lifelong student of American history, Anderson reflected on his experience as a pastor and marriage counselor, and the visions for a bipartisan presidential partnership established by the founding fathers, as a way to change the face of today’s political climate.

At the same time, the blessed presence of my little one in that cramped voting booth reminded me of another important life lesson–there is far more to life than politics. Whether we elect the brilliant or the baffoon, we can and must properly recognize politics in service to life and not the other way around. We must see our loved ones and our fellow citizens as people first, and ourselves as primary participants in the present chapter of life which does not depend upon partisan victory and won’t be up for grabs in the 2014 midterms.

A wise teacher once clarified that the sabbath day was meant for man, not man for the sabbath. The same can be said of the political process in any healthy society.  You might be thrilled with the results of the 2012 elections, or you may be nauseated by them. But to savor life as it was intended, you must embrace the glorious fact that there is life after elections.

Just don’t forget to live it.

Those who lose a loving mother might ask themselves “What would mom say?” when faced with difficult circumstances. Those who study under an impactful teacher may wonder “What would the teacher say?” when challenged in their career of choice.

As Americans weather today’s polarizing political climate, we do well to step back and listen to the collective voice of America’s Founding Fathers, who’s rare combination of forward-looking wisdom and inspiring courage gave birth to the grand experiment known as the United States of America. If we could somehow breath life into their dry bones and show them how to work a remote control, what would they say about the tone, direction, and nature of American politics today? If we could summon their wisdom, and hear their voice, what would the Founders say?

As audacious, presumptuous, and risky as it may appear to speak on behalf of the Founders, I nonetheless humbly present what I believe would be the posthumous, threefold charge of the Founding Fathers were they to speak directly to an American citizenry hopelessly mired in the muddy ruts of the 2012 election season:

1. You must find a crisis in the form of a common enemy. Our fellow Americans, we know how negative this sounds, but trust us, it’s true. You need a crisis, a common enemy to strive against. Remember that we, your Founding Fathers, were united by a crises in the form of England, a dominant world power which sought to curtail our liberty without consent, and the tyrannical King George. This intolerable intrusion inspired us to fight together with both sword and pen, risking our lives and fortunes because we believed that our enemy would devour us if we were divided. Lucky for us (and you), we won that battle. But unfortunately, once we lacked our common crisis, we turned against one another, casting other Americans as the new enemy who sought to trample the Constitution through a destructive and un-American ideology. If you wish to carry forth the spirit that founded this nation, you need an enemy too, dear friends, an enemy that doesn’t stand up as the National Anthem was sung. Call it your national debt (Don’t get us started on that!), global terrorism, or poverty. Call it little green men if you have to, but you must find something. You must find a cause that unites you, or you’ll turn against one another as we did. Americans were born to face problems together. Anything less propels us toward a cold civil war.

2. Embrace political parties with hesitation and caution, as we did. When we sat down in Philadelphia to write America’s Constitution, none of us identified ourselves in partisan terms. We were Americans. Our metaphorical yard signs had stars and stripes, not elephants and donkeys. Our carriage stickers—the Colonial equivalent of bumper stickers—read “United We Stand.” We created the three-branches of government in hopes that those elected centers of power, not political parties, would do the heavy lifting of government, and we were gravely concerned that parties would undermine this delicate system of checks and balances. At the same time, nearly all of us eventually started or joined political parties ourselves, because parties are the natural evolution in a maturing democracy. Yet we always did so with caution and skepticism, mindful that partisanship has the potential to hasten and enhance the work of government, as well as to undermine it.

3. We were gravely concerned about government becoming too strong—and too weak. Thomas Jefferson and John Adams embodied our fundamental disagreement as to the desirable size and scope of government, in terms of its legislative, economic, and military power. We all recognized that prior, temporary colonial governments (known as the First and Second Continental Congress) were hopelessly underpowered, but we tried to enhance federal power while preventing it from attaining the heavy-handed stature of the British Crown. Like you, we disagreed about both the necessary and excessive boundaries to federal power, and we admit that we left you with some problems to work out. To that end, we remind you that your government is vastly larger, more expansive, and more in debt than we had ever imagined it could be, and that you must carefully consider the consequences of each and every way in which you expand federal power. Once you give your government new powers, it’s unlikely that you’ll ever get them back.

Given the Founders’ original prescription that the second place finisher in the presidential election would become the vice president, their system was decidedly non-partisan, guranteeing that each branch would be served by individuals representing multiple regions and political pursuasions, which included the executive branch (until the passage of the 12th Ammendment).

Thus, when the Founding Fathers crafted the consititution, they empowered a government of three, non-partisan braches, which would moderate one another while overseeing the essential operations of a modern state, all in a manner that intentionally included individuals from diverse political backgrounds. Nowhere was this more important than in the executive branch.

Compare this original scenario to that of the present day, where each branch is “governed” by a dominant party and ideology, including the judiciary, and you’ll find that we aren’t in Kansas–or should I say, Philidelphia–anymore.

In the 2008 presidential race, an above average 56.8% of potential voters went to the polls, which was up from 55%, 51%, and 49% in each of the 2004, 2000, and 1996 elections respectively (according to infoplease.com). Midterm elections woo far less citizens through the voting booth curtain, ranging from 36% to 38% in the last two decades.

Now that a record number of citizens receive entitlement funds from the government, one would expect the number of interested voters to increase. Those who wish to keep their government benefits would vote for candidates who promise to keep the checks coming, while those concerned with the balooning costs of entitlements will vote for candidates who promise to balance and cut the budget. Following the crescendo of partisan rhetoric, voters would vote to turn the tide of public policy in the direction of their values and views for the sake of the national vision they dream of.

Or voting numbers could decrease sharply.

Elections in newly democratic countries like Iraq reveal that voting accompanies hope. Two thirds of Iraqis voted in their 2005 elections, despite the fact that numerous groups boycotted the election while threats of violence hindered numerous parts of the nation. In 2010, Afgan voters elected the lower house of parlament with participation of well over 40% (their version of the midterm election) despite a huge degree of danger posed by violent factions.

New democracies have hope, while established ones tend to take their priviledges for granted, become disengaged, and participate less.

Don’t get me wrong: I would much rather have a person stay home than vote out of ignorance. We want voters who understand the candidates and the issues. The act of being informed is the precursor to the act of voting, and informed votors are more likely to vote than those who are uninformed… that is, if they have hope.

Hope comes from understanding the power of democratic potential; apathy comes from ignorance.  Apathy, it seems, it the primary indicator of disengaged, would-be voters. When I’m apathetic, I’m not going to stay informed, and I’m not going to vote.

The answer?  We need to understand how lucky we are to have a say in our nation’s future.  We need to watch (and pray for) nations in which citizens’ lives are managed and manipulated by a government in which they have no say or representation. We need to understand our own history, from our contsitutional founding to the military and political battles fought to secure our right to govern ourselves. We need to see coverage of new democracies basking in the glory of the ballot box, so that we more fully treasure the priviledge we have as one that many in human history have died for but few have enjoyed. We need fair-minded media to keep citizens informed while letting them think for themselves, without giving them a biased push in one direction or another. And we need creative candidates who stand out from the pack by putting country about career and party.

We understand why voters vote. Time will tell if they do.

A) If you want to run from the bad guy, go to page 84.

B) If you want to poke the bad guy with your magic wand, go to page 149.

C) If you try to hide where you are, go to page 35.

When it comes to presidential politics, here’s a choose-your-own-adventure question to chew on. Given the pendulum swing of partisanship, in which power tends to sway back and forth between the party in power and the dissenting party as each take their revolving places in an unending and usually unproductive tug-of-war match, which would you prefer:

A)     Have your candidate of choice elected as president, while the opposing party successfully does everything and everything to make his/her  term as unsuccessful as possible.

B)      Have your candidate’s opponent elected as president, while your party successfully does everything and everything to make his/her  term as unsuccessful as possible.

C)      Have your candidate’s opponent elected as president, while your candidate accepts the role of vice president and represents your party’s interests in all major decisions and challenges.

Careful now. You may be tempted to answer “A,” and who could blame you? Option “B” probably doesn’t tickle your fancy, and “C” likely sounds like a story from a bad science fiction novel about life on a strange planet. But the truth is that “C” was the original framework for this nation, the way in which our founders arranged the vice presidency to function, and the backbone of the Running Mate story.

Think about it for a moment. What good is it to have your party in power if they can’t do anything? Could it possibly be more effective to have your opponent elected if your party has a seat at the table, and with it an opportunity to influence outcomes and initiatives that will most certainly have bipartisan support?

Watch the story play out at runningmatebook.com.

And the wheels on the bus go round and round.

Running Mate imagines a totally different scenario for a modern day presidential election, by drawing from the original arrangement for the vice presidency as prescribed in the constitution. The founders arranged for the second place finisher in the election to become the vice president. In today’s terms, that would mean that Barak Obama would be Romney’s VP if the latter wins, or that Romney would replace Joe Biden in the “veep-seat” if Obama scores a second term.

Crazy? Yes. Doomed to fail? Absolutely. Proof that the founders had an unbelievably high value of bipartisan or even non-partisan statesmanship? Right on.

What are the pro’s and con’s of the founders original arrangement? Why did it fail, and how could it benefit an age in which partisanship cripples progress?

The lead character in Running Mate, Governor Maurice Franklin, asks the question, ”What if the founders had it right?”

Well? What if?