It would be wise to question what the Democrats and Republicans agree on, and thus don't even publicly discuss.

This definitely should receive much greater scrutiny. American political discourse is very shallow, but also not very wide. There is a huge range of political possibilities and solutions to the problems that we face that never see the light of day in any major media outlet and that are never even entertained by the political parties. And on those rare occasions when they are brought up, it is almost always in the context of being a "kooky, far left-wing" pipe dream that won't work.

Just consider the very limited set of proposals for "universal" health care from the Democrats and Republicans.

Very nice essay Mr. Keillor. Yes, we news/political junkies have heard it before, and I don't begrudge you your reference to Huck Finn and lighting it to the territories. As I recall, Aunt Sally was thinking about civilizing Huck and after what he'd seen of civilization and its customs he'd rather've gone to hell than live with their expectations, particularly where Jim was concerned.

Our present "civilization"--largely a misnomer if ever there was one--is not much better than the one Huck disdained. Yes, racial prejudice is vastly decreased, but the lying, pettiness, and group identity that Huck found so objectionable are all on display in this election and our hyperpartisan political and cultural lives.

The only reason I don't light out for the territories myself is a, perhaps vain, hope that I can do some part to make things a bit better and a clear recognition that even if I could light out for the territories, I couldn't escape the consequences of how things will be if we don't stay to fight the good fight. There was a time when a person could escape the madness and maybe make a life apart, but as a species we now affect directly and indirectly anyplace one might light to. We are too interconnected to hope we can live that fantasy, so let us commit ourselves to making better what we can.

Last week's strip was just a bit too literal for me, but this one with it's old Western metaphor is dead on. Keep 'em coming you cartooning maverick.

Ever since reading Plato's Republic as an undergraduate, I have returned from time-to-time to reconsider whether his metaphor of the organization of the city and its inhabitants being an analogy for the human soul is correct. Particularly as it may reflect on democracy as a political system.

On the one hand, if one accepts Plato's notion that there are gold-, silver- and bronze-souled individuals each with different natures (gold being suited to be philosopher kings, silver for guardians of the city, and bronze having primarily commercial/practical interests), then democracy is doomed to failure because the majority will be entranced by unwarranted inferences about the nature of reality (the metaphor of the cave) and those that do rigorously seek self knowledge will be too few to be the majority.

On the other hand, if the city is just a metaphor for the different parts of the soul that are in all of us to varying degrees, then perhaps with a true liberal education (know thyself), each individual could (to varying degrees) come to appreciate how hard it is to truly know some things and have appropriate degrees of skepticism about their knowledge.

If we accept the second possibility, then nothing less than a true education (not propagandizing disguised as education) provides any hope for democracy.

Frankly, other than for the requirements of being able to do high-tech jobs, I think many of the wealthy are quite content to make sure this sort of thinking-person's education is kept far from the majority. Keep them entertained with the modern equivalent of bread and circuses. Provide them early on with an ideology that elevates plain, home-spun attitudes and denigrates intellectuals as wimpy, arugula-eating, elitists. Then see whether you can approach anything like what the author suggests in this article. Not likely.

(BTW, I haven't given up. I'm a professional educator and scientist and do think things can be turned around, but not quickly or easily.)

There is a number of thought provoking letters here, worthy of additional discussion, but these forums consistently devolve into shouting matches, where only a few of the posters are actually listening to one another. We need to either develop an on-line forum that has tools to minimize this--so the ones of us that truly want to do something other than mindlessly push an agenda can converse--or give up on the notion that these should be anything more than letters to the editor.

I'd like to have a real conversation with many who post, but in the absence of some means of weeding out posts from individuals who are only disruptive, it's just not worth the time.

It is essential the the current Bailout legislation not be allowed to pass in it's current form. It gives much too much power to the Treasury Secretary without essential oversight and controls on how he can spend out money to buy so-called toxic debt.

Yes, the financial system is in a bad way, but let's not allow it to become even worse by giving a blank check to one man to spend our money.