>The National Front will be part of the government in France. Is that what we should strive for? Yes. People should be free to elect whoever they want to repre

>The National Front will be part of the government in France. Is that what we should strive for? Yes. People should be free to elect whoever they want to represent them. I'm not a National Front supporter, but they clearly have support and why should they be withheld from running in a free election simply because others dislike their campaign platform? The idea of "Only X parties that conform to Y beliefs should be able to run/hold government" is a very dangerous one. I would rather see a world full of governments made up of mixed up groups of representatives than that which the US currently has - two sides of the same coin being flipped every 4 years with a very small number of families establishing themselves as political dynasties. There's ~350m people in the US. There is no way the diversity of views in that 350m people is represented in the two parties that hold power there. Similarly, there are 350m people and yet those who hold the office of President are, and have been for decades, close relatives of former Presidents. 2016 is just around the corner and it's looking like the US may well have another Clinton or Bush in office. How the hell is that right? A nation's power structure should be free to change as the people want it to. The government is supposed to represent and serve the people, not the other way around. We're seeing former outlying political entities in Europe experiencing a large increase in support - UKIP in the UK, Syriza in Greece, Sinn Fein in Ireland, the separatists in Spain, etc. - because a hell of a lot of people feel the ruling entities there are no longer representing the people and are demanding change. That is something that should be welcomed and embraced. A nation should be free to make its own choices and deal with the consequences, not be shackled to approved political ideologies.