"Shouldn't we be focusing on people/citizen reform instead of government reform? How can we reform government effectively without reforming the people?"
And your response was:
"Yes we should--but that does not behoove government--regardless of political affiliation"
So my concern with your statement is this: Does your statement infer that we have no recourse because government wouldn't approve of an "individual/citizen" focused reform? If the government is run by the people, (even though it doesn't seem like it, if the right people did what they should, I still believe our voices can be heard) then shouldn't we be able to make it happen? If we take a fatalist attitude and give up on it, isn't that the same as ringing the bell during Hell Week?
And to take this thought closer to a solution, HOW can we instigate a change in focus? I don't care whether or not it behooves government to make a change. I think it doesn't behoove government because the people that elect those government officials are the ones that mistakenly believe that if they elect someone they can brush off those responsibities and not check to make sure the job is being done right. So the people are failing in their responsibility. The government doesn't have the power to refuse to reform the people.
So how do you marry my last statement, "The government doesn't have the power to refuse to reform the people," with your statement, "Yes we should--but that does not behoove government--regardless of political affiliation?"
Or am I wrong, and the people REALLY don't have power anymore? In which case, what are our options for improving our government system?