Over the holidays I did some soul-searching about the direction of the country and the direction of Maine. The first decade of the new century turned out badly.

Our national economy nearly collapsed. We managed to get ourselves deeply enmeshed in two wars, Iraq and Afghanistan.

We find ourselves falling behind the rest of the developed world in what has been America's crown jewel, our education system.

It seems that we have lost our "edge" – that indefinable quality that has driven America from success to success over our 200-year history.

There is much to criticize, but the question is, what can we do? I am convinced that we have to look more fundamentally at our ability to govern effectively, at both the national and state level.

Our problem with the mess that has become health care reform is a symptom of a deeper malaise. Let me share my sense of the underlying issues and what we might do to address them.

On the national level, I believe there are two fundamental problems that are destroying our ability to govern: the corrosive impact of money and the extreme polarization of our two major political parties. If we can crack the code on these two issues, we may be able to regain our footing as a country.

On the issue of money, our senators and representatives worry too much of the time about their fundraising status. With campaigns routinely costing millions of dollars, if not tens of millions of dollars, fundraising is their No. 1 priority.

This has been building over the last 30 years, in spite of reform efforts. Whatever they may say, it does affect how legislators vote. Labor, the insurance industry and Big Pharma spent more than $500 million in 2009 lobbying on health care, and we have a 2,000-page bill dedicated to placating each of those interests, rather than the interests of the nation.

I am convinced that the best way to truly limit the funding of campaigns is by a constitutional amendment. This is the only approach that can set iron-clad limits on both individual and corporate or union contributions.

This idea has been championed by two recent and highly regarded senators, Bill Bradley and David Boren. A constitutional amendment requires national legislation passed by a two-thirds vote in both chambers that is then ratified by 75 percent of the states. It is a process that can take several years, although the recent amendment to lower the voting age to 18 was ratified in 100 days. Best to get started on this one right away.

The other fundamental problem is that in most states and congressional districts, relentless gerrymandering has resulted in situations in which only conservative Republicans or liberal Democrats can be elected. In practice, this means the loss of the center in American politics, and with it, the ability to work together in Congress to address significant issues.

The cure to this problem is relatively obvious – the open primary. In an open primary system there is only one primary, in which Republicans, Democrats and independents may enter. The top two vote- getters in this primary then face each other in the general election.

Think about this for a moment – if you were a Republican running say, in Maine's 1st District, your chance of being a top-two finisher would depend on attracting moderates and even some Democrats to vote for you. Thus, the candidates likely to emerge from an open primary process will be more moderate.

The only state that currently employs this process is Washington. Washington, like Maine, has two women senators. Like Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell are moderates, though of the Democratic Party.

While this solution is simple in concept, it is heartily disliked by both political parties because it would reduce their influence. The open primary approach could be more easily proposed, and ultimately adapted, in states like Maine where citizens' initiatives can be put on the ballot.

These two fundamental reforms, I believe, hold the key to getting this country back on track in the new century. Do we have the will to make such significant changes?

I am not sure we are up to the challenge. What do you think? How could we get these initiatives passed? Is there support for such dramatic change? If there is no stomach for this fight, we have little to look forward to but long and certain decline.

(Next week, I will address the fundamental governance issues in Maine.)