More or Less

More or less?

That's the question in politics today.

What's the solution to the financial crisis? More regulation, or less regulation?

What's the best way to create jobs? More government spending, or less government spending?

What's the best way for Obama to lead? More TV appearances, or fewer TV appearances?

Should the current healthcare bill provide more coverage to the uninsured, or less?

In Afghanistan, do we need more troops, or fewer troops?

For the vast independent middle, these questions are too difficult to answer. Compassion is balanced against thrift, the free market is balanced against the fair market, the need to lead is balanced against the need to listen -- and heads start spinning.

Americans want change, but they have no idea what change they want. Each side, of course, claims that Americans are clamoring for their kind of change, but the schizophrenic elections we've been having only prove that we have a schizophrenic electorate.

So we go with the person who just feels right -- the person who seems to share our rage, but doesn't share answers. A year ago that person was Barack Obama. Today it's Scott Brown. Tomorrow it could be Sarah Palin. Or it might be Pat Buchanan. Or it could switch back and be a liberal Senator like Sherrod Brown. The public isn't looking for answers. It's looking for a placeholder for their feelings.

Ultimately, the answer to the above questions is probably going to be that we need to do more with less. Maximum regulation with minimum red tape. Maximum jobs created with minimum dollars spent. Maximum health coverage with minimum cost to taxpayers. Maximum inspiration with minimum words. Maximum security with minimum troops. But that's a hard rallying cry. And actually creating "more with less" solutions is hard work.

Obama knows this. Hopefully Scott Brown knows this. But until a ruling majority knows this, and passes this, and explains this, we'll continue to vote, more or less, based on feelings.