According to Rasmussen, Americans definitely do want to rule themselves. It could also be assumed that Libertarians and Tea Party activists agree, based on just about everything that they’ve been preaching from their respective beginnings. However, all of the above are speaking with their own agendas, Scott Rasmussen taking a capitalist one as he’s attempting to sell copies of his book, and the others with their desire to gain followers and momentum in the political arena in general.

While claiming that the American people have never shown such a desire for self-governance since the years before the Revolutionary War is an excellent selling point for Rasmussen and his book claiming that is precisely where we are headed, there is one particular problem that seems to be overlooked in this theory. The Libertarians and Tea Party activists are acutely aware of the “wild card” that could easily cause Rasmussen’s theory to fall like a house of cards – the collective attention deficit disorder of the voting public.

Yes, voters are getting annoyed with power-grabbing behaviors in Washington and beyond by presumptuous politicians that assume that the people will love anything that the government can do for them. Perhaps there are even a few that bother to recall those historic words from a Democrat long ago, imploring that the public refrain from expecting the government to do too much for the people. But regardless of general opinions of the people that the government is overstepping bounds on issues like health care, there is still a larger force in motion. Society has long since recognized that government can be expected to provide benefits of all kinds, and at least according to one Scotsman, once that happens the voters tend to elect candidates that are most likely to grant the most benefits to the people. Couple that theory with the general lack of attention that is given to the political process in general by the masses, and it is unlikely that Rasmussen’s contention that we are on the brink of some sort of revolution is valid. Bluntly, the public is far too apathetic, and while they are not exactly pleased with the way things are, there are far too many other things keeping the masses busy to bother doing anything about it. Yes, there will be vocal minorities, and yes, they will garner the attention of the masses from time to time, but that fleeting attention offers no real promise of action.

That is not to say that action is not needed – it is. But beyond the wishful thinking of Rasmussen hoping to boost book sales, and political activists hoping to cause real change – not the fluff and stuff the public was sold a couple years ago – it is yet another passing distraction for the vast majority to talk about at the watercoolers or in line at Starbuck’s. The real problem isn’t getting the people to agree that government needs to be reined in, it is getting the people to actually do something that will result in that change we can believe in.