volveré y seré millones
This is a puritan conception of written law. You can never live fully by your laws. Laws are always flawed. And more importantly, the constitution is always outdated and continually reinterpreted. Worshiping the constitution is like those religious practitioners that are obsessed with their scriptures. It's very important, but it's not God.
Neither candidate is a constitutionalist with the guts to stand up and denounce the total failure of our system to live by its own laws.
Something like that, barring the fact that it's not all that matters, yet, the sadly limited system also contains countless efforts by citizens to push democratic (in the broad, not party, sense) or popular agendas. As Pasolini noted in a movie (it was a sort of documentary or in-the-making for another movie) I saw the other day, problems are not solved, they are lived. You can't deny that, whatever the steep limitations, the parties do also grant some sort of debate in a dual system. Imagine even less, it's a very real possibility. Thank a trillion little efforts for what there is.
While everyone is busy "deciding" Democrat or Republican, the same group of corporatist thugs, friends of both Democrat AND Republican so long as the price is right, retains true control over the Congress, which is all that matters.
Life is really problematic and full of woes. Are you going to shoot yourself to get rid of them? Politics is a constant struggle and is all about little gains. Bigger changes only come when little steps add up and cause a greater shift that no one in particular can control, with indeterminate consequences. Nothing is more deluded than concentrating on a big change when all the pathetic little steps that need to be taken immediately are ignored in a nihilistic response to the huge flaws of the system, politics in general or the amounts of social injustice.
Because the issue goes well beyond the dual and muddled party system.
At a point in time where the very foundations of our society threaten to crumble, national dialogue is focused on the dead horses of gay marriage, abortion, and Medicare. Why?
You can never change the world, just make a little difference. And when that little difference is close to the maximum you can do, it's everything and the greatest thing in humanity, even if it doesn't even have a clear effect. Everything else is a scam following a deceptive carrot ever dangling beyond your reach. Since action is social and not merely individual, as individuals, we can't just measure our contribution in an utilitarian way. We don't have all the picture, so all we can really play is our minuscule part. Not playing it because others aren't playing it fails it. We are each tiny cells of society, not its brains. The brains of humanity are a complex, convoluted result of all our tiny interactions. We may be pretty smart individually but the sum of humanity makes a huge dumb animal, but it's even stupider if we don't admit that and work in consequence, however dreary, limited, indirect and slow that may be.
You can focus on good deeds and the such, but they're NOT going to change the world when it is being pressed to obliteration beneath the malevolent thumb of the most powerful cabal to ever arise thus far in human history.
It's not that they "choose to act" petulantly or on a whim, there are real problems with access to education and decision making that don't allow them empowered responses. Health is the access to medicine and immediate services, but it's also access to information. You can even call it "health capital" in the same way that accumulating intellectual or social capacities is a form of wealth and power, and extends simple monetary or property-based wealth. But it's not the only problem because information is only useful when you can put it to use.
The only real problem is the lack of information and teaching regarding the consequences. American citizens act as though they have no responsibilities, including their own health, and that's the majority of the problem for almost every issue we have at the moment.
If you had a medicine TV channel telling you everything about medical issues, it could help, but if your material access to medical materials and services is limited you won't appreciate it or may even never pay attention to it. Its limited value would not be worth the time compared to access to such a channel with all the right means. The other side of the coin is also true: you can provide all the medicine in the world but will just generate drug abusers if knowledge on medicine and its application is not transparent.
The debate on abortion illustrates this. To reduce it, because you can't eradicate it, you can allow it openly (provide access) and need to increase sexual education. But to do so you have to bypass the hurdles of social conservatism and some business interests; doctors who make money from being able to pressure people wanting to access something that is illegal or restricted. Economic and socially conservative restrictions to other aspects of medicine also have that effect, even though it may not be so evident. The result makes the population "medically brutish", but rather than their fault, or simply a matter of information to choose, it's because they were sidelined economically (where info is just part of this) from access to medical benefits.
This sidelining makes people feel responsibilities are in vain, or even something that benefits others rather than themselves. I'd urge a person, individually, to take action (responsibility) in things he can do, yet, it's also a matter of pushing, little by little, for policies that will encourage that, giving them the power to appreciate their responsibility. Otherwise, however well intended, the wish for people to make responsible choices falls on ears that are deafened by their frustrations. Worse if it's used as a justification to block such empowering policies.