The Political Divide will be the Ruin of the United States of America

Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.
-Richard Armour American poet and author

I remember the first time I was actually interested in politics. It is hard to believe how many years it has been since the notorious Clinton scandal in the white house. I was always a Clinton fan, but then again, I wasn't even a teen - what did I know? I remember questioning what exactly an alleged affair had to do with politics, how exactly it was "illegal" and why the media was so focused on it.

I remember my support for George W. Bush, based on the fact that I didn't like listening to Al Gore speak. Then came the scandal in the Florida voting and though I was only 12 years old, maturity peaked through and I began to open my eyes to real "politics".

September 11th, 2001 sits in my memory as the day I truly became interested. Much like everyone else, and still to the belief of some, I was under the impression that the events of that day were done by a group of people who hated our freedoms. Our freedoms? What were our "freedoms"? Thus began my trek into my obsession with the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Founding Fathers, and the history of the United States.

In 2004 I supported Bush again, but this was because I hated Kerry even more. I remember thinking - "Hey, I don't like either of these guys, neither of them are good enough to run this country and do the right things." Yet I was the only one. Everybody around me just played into the system and never questioned it. Politics were taboo to talk about so I never really shared my beliefs, that was until high school when finally - I let my voice be heard.

I quickly became hated in my school as I spoke out about the merits of Communism. I wasn't a Communist by any means, the topic simply intrigued me. Everyone was so closed minded by the red scare and the propaganda laid against Communism that I received jeers and a practical excommunication from fellow classmates. I spoke of the reasons for Communism's failure being due to the human psyche and the lust for power of the dictators in charge - so much so that they refused to give up control and refused to think about the well being of the people overall - the literal plan that Communism was SUPPOSED to represent.

I presented Communism and Democracy, and laid out the pros and cons of both but I soon realized that these kids, though at the time some of them not even old enough to drive- had already been brainwashed by the political system and they had already made up their minds to be sheep of the political divide.


From childhood we are instilled with the ideologies of two party politics and the belief that we can only believe in one side, and so we must be against the other. We are hard wired by our upbringings to believe that there can only be one side solutions to problems and that certain areas of reasoning and knowledge are taboo and must be ignored or degraded - never to be viable options.

I wish I could say that it is something that is relatively new, but the divide has long been going on. I cannot speak for past generations though evidence is clearly there, but so long as I have been alive the divide is stronger then ever, and it grows stronger still.

Even on ATS, though Skeptic Overlord brings up the topic now and again, I never really took notice until I took a step back and observed. The blatant political divide that is present on ATS (that has been present for quite some time as per SO's topic OP/ED: Dark Days. (The black band on ATS)) is leading even us, those who would be the only open opposition to tyranny and the corrupt system, to make no progress and to become lost in petty arguments that target individual beliefs and ideologies rather than the issues that affect us in our daily lives and will continue to effect us for years to come.

It seems that with increasing speed, every viable topic of broken liberties, insane new laws, or government corruption doesn't take any more than one reply (and in some cases the opening post alone) to dissolve into the realm of Liberal vs Conservative or Republican vs Democrat. It leads me to the question that I have asked time and time again - where have the people gone? What ever happened to independent thinking and why has it been replaced with stereotyping and fallacy driven labels?




No, I am sadly afraid that this political divide now runs too deep and it will be because of the inability of people on ATS and around this country to accept individuality over conformity - that this country will meet its downfall. However, this is simply clear to any who would choose to observe reality, for those who are conspiracy minded, let it be known that division of the people is intentional and it has been the most successful ploy by power hungry men to ever be enacted.

Yes, while bickering continues over whether Bob should be allowed to marry John, and while fights ensue over whether Jenny is allowed to abort her fetus, laws will continue to be passed that actually deal with things people take for granted. Laws the regulate your every being from the moment you are conceived in the womb, until the moment you are buried 6 feet in the ground. You will be be too busy discussing whether taxes should be raised or lowered and never stop to think that they should be removed altogether. Throughout your life you will make billions upon billions of unconscious and conscious decisions and because of the distractions of the political divide - you will do them mindlessly and with complete regard and acceptance to the regulations and laws you are accustomed to - never questioning, never opening your eyes, just mindlessly obeying.

The system has worked so grand. While everyone continues to want to force people to do things the way THEY want things to be done, regulations and laws layer upon layer, stack on top of each other to create a world where even the simplest of actions (or inaction) are questioned in the name of "law" and the "greater good".






And so, people will do nothing. They will THINK that they are doing something but ultimately, the closed mindedness and lack of individual thought has created, and will continue to create a nation of sheep. People will continue to believe what they want and spew hate towards any side that is different than theirs instead of actually accepting the fact that individual beliefs of each and every person CAN coexist with the other without forced issues.


I think Obama is a bad President.

Ah, get out of here you racist Neo-Con!

George W. Bush destroyed our rights.

You left-wing socialist, go back to Europe where you belong!

I believe in individual liberties and lower taxes.

You racist, Tea Baggin' Sarah Palin supporter!


This is what I see. THIS is what is everywhere. Individual thought has died and been replaced with the grand political divide and believe me when I say this:

The Political Divide will be the ruin of the United States of America



I have been called a Neo-Con. I have been called a radical. I have been called a Communist. I have been called a liberal. I have been called a Democrat. I have been called a Republican. I have been called a Constitutionalist.

But you know what? I am NONE of those things and I will be damned if I sit back a let people continue to ignore what I really am:

.
.
.
.

A
HUMAN
BEING

... and as that I recognize that I am responsible for my views and beliefs and I shall respect all others views and beliefs even if they conflict with my own. In my fight I will find truth and answers and I will focus not on what is left or right... but on what is RIGHT and what is WRONG.


I ask - who else is with me?

You are a young buck

You need to realize that the genius of this nation is that it is kept from tyranny
because of the two sides, the duality of men and mankind.

This creates a perpetual debate and argument which is in fact, not futile grounds
for totalitarian design.



[edit on 29-4-2010 by Janky Red]

I had no clue you were a communist before. That is definitly a pretty huge leap from what you generally support now. I think calling yourself a socialist or what have you is not necessarily a bad thing as long as people do not make it that. We need to recognise that behind all ideologies their proponents only think that way because that is what they believe is best for our country or even our world.

I think that it is a bad thing to have just two political parties and your either black/white, yin/yang, for/against. That's just an easy way to divide a country and solidify power by tptb. We should be open to allowing people to express their political beliefs whether they want to join a communist party, a nationalist party, a liberal party or just remain an independent.

They have convinced us that anything outside of the left-right, liberal-conservative paradime is bad and a national threat. I identify as a Unionist, I just find it easier than listing every political issue and my opinion upon it.

Pretty much. Some people are only able to see right and left and buy into the propaganda.

All I can say is that eventually there will be a reckoning and that reckoning will be the deciding factor on who is the biggest majority and the next direction for the country.

[edit on 28-4-2010 by Janky Red]

The political divide will destroy this country if we don't get our sh*t together in a hurry. For a site that is supposed to be about denying ignorance I cannot believe how many people are so stuck in partisan politics or get lost in the false left/right paradigm. What is even more unbelievable is how many truly intelligent members of our community are being divided and conquered, being played by TPTB while the agenda rolls on. Imagine how much could be accomplished if so many of these brilliant minds could come together and find some common ground. But most of what we hear is Hannity, Beck, Maddow, O'Reilly and Olbermann parroting. It's time to think for ourselves instead of listening to some talking head and assuming they are right.

Originally posted by Light of Night
Pretty much. Some people are only able to see right and left and buy into the propaganda.

All I can say is that eventually there will be a reckoning and that reckoning will be the deciding factor on who is the biggest majority and the next direction for the country.

Nope- one will win, power will condense into dictate until everyone will be screwed just the same.

It already has!

There are decided differences among groups. what everyone both the so called left and right don't understand is the way to come together is make everything voluntary.

Take me for instance I hate socialism mainly because it is forced. if you socialist want to have socialism knock yourself out but make it voluntary.

Make it a free market and let people choose what they will participate in and everyone is happy except those who depend on stealing the fruits of others labor for thier existence. This is why I think the socialist use force because I believe socialism would die of attrition if it wasn't forced.

So all you self avowed socialist prove me wrong and start preaching voluntarism for your programs and ideas and I will have no problem with you? This is a serious post and we could overcome the left right divide I believe if we could agree on one thing and that is non-force!

Good thread OP by the way and I have thought of making a thread like my post but will see where it goes from here.

[edit on 28-4-2010 by hawkiye]

The left/right polarization is nothing more than a tool of the NWO to distract everyone from what is really happening. It's a product of the media and nothing more.

Originally posted by warpcrafter
The left/right polarization is nothing more than a tool of the NWO to distract everyone from what is really happening. It's a product of the media and nothing more.

I agree they use it as a tool but I would not say it is entirely made up there is decided differences and they exploit them.

So what is the solution how do we come together? My previous post in this thread explains what I think is the solution.

[edit on 29-4-2010 by hawkiye]

The political divide in this country extends as far back as the Revolution of 1776 and possibly even further back. In the beginning, there were "loyalists" and "patriots", who chose their sides and acted accordingly. In the year of 1776 the Articles of Federation and Perpetual Union were drawn up to establish a government, but by 1778 a reform party had formed in the guise of The Federalist Party, and in opposition to that party, there was the Anti-Federalist Party, as the debate for a new Constitution had all ready begun. The Federalists were vocal advocates of a strong central government, the Anti-Federalist fairly suspicious of such a notion. Of the Federalists, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison were perhaps the most visible.

By 1787, The Federalist had managed to convince a new nation to adopt a stronger central government, and The Constitution for the United States of America was adopted as Supreme Law of the Land. George Washington became the first President in 1789, with John Adams as his Vice President. While Washington was famously against the notion of political parties and offered dire warnings against them in his Farewell Address, his political views seemed to be fairly aligned with the Federalist Party.

By the time John Adams become the second President of the United States, the Federalist Party was beginning to see its end, frustrated by in party fighting by a faction led by Alexander Hamilton, combined with disputes with the newly formed Republican Party led by Thomas Jefferson, (Sometimes called the Democratic Party or Republican-Democrat Party, or Democratic-Republicans), Adams only served one term as President and Jefferson became the third President of the United States. The rift between Adams and Jefferson was palpable and Adams left Washington to settle into retirement.

Alexander Hamilton was the architect of the First Bank of the United States, which created many squabbles, particularly between Jefferson and Hamilton, but Hamilton's most deadly squabble manifested with a feud between he and Aaron Burr, and in a duel, Burr shot Hamilton fatally wounding him. So, where both Hamilton and Jefferson began as Federalists, Jefferson broke away from that party forming his own with other like minded souls, while Aaron Burr, whom Jefferson did not particularly like, served as Vice President...when he wasn't dueling with other Founders.

However, before Jefferson became President, John Adams had signed into law the Alien and Sedition Acts, a piece of legislation that Jefferson found abhorrent to the Constitution and the First Amendment. When finally becoming President, Jefferson used his power of pardon to pardon many who were imprisoned due to this Alien and Sedition Acts. Jefferson also worked towards having several federal taxes repealed. There was the issue of the "Midnight Judges" appointed by Adams, which ultimately led to the famous Marbury v Madison decision by The Supreme Court, which Jefferson thought was an appalling decision and power grabbing by The SCOTUS.

By 1807 there was what would become known as the Burr Conspiracy, where Jefferson ordered that his Vice President be tried for treason. Jefferson had Burr's "treasonous cabal" of planters, politicians and army officers, (including the future President Andrew Jackson), head off before they were able to reach the territory of Texas and establish their own union. Charges were brought against Bur in the state of Kentucky but with the help of Henry Clay as his attorney, was able to have the charges against him dismissed. Rumors of insurrection wildly went about the Union, and one Jo Daviess wrote several letters to Jefferson warning him that Burr was "meditating the overthrow of Jefferson's administration.

When Jefferson finally ordered Burrs arrest, Aaron Burr had fled to Mississippi territory, where he was apprehended, escaped and recaptured, and while in transport back to D.C. attempted escape one more time, but failed. Burr stood trial in Virginia for treason but was acquitted for lack of evidence. While Jefferson is generally regarded as being one of the greatest Presidents of the United States, his own reputation at the time of his Presidency was greatly tarnished by the Embargo Act of 1807, but this legislation, being as ineffective as it was, saw its repeal by the end of Jefferson's second term.

James Madison, (author of The Bill of Rights), became the 4th President but before becoming President had his fair share of political disputes, including opposition to a national bank. Failing to stop the establishment of the First Bank of the United States, Madison used his Presidency to allow the charter to that bank expire. However, when the war of 1812 broke, Madison found a new perspective, finding it increasingly difficult to fund this war, and by 1816 signed into law, The Second Bank of the United States. The war of 1812 was just one of many problems Madison faced as President, as he also struggled with a divided cabinet, a Congress not to willing to go along, Governors who obstructed his aims at every step, and his own fractious party.

James Monroe became the 5th President and in the beginning presided over a relatively peaceful and calm era in the United States, before the Panic of 1819, which brought an abrupt end to the feel good times that marked the beginning of the Monroe administration. Monroe is best known for the Monroe Doctrine which was policy that essentially told Europe that further colonization of North America was a no-no.

John Quincy Adams, son of John Adams, became the 6th President, who was a member of first the Federalist Party, then the Democratic-Republican Party, moving on to the Anti-Masonic Party and finally the Whig Party, but like his father only served one term, loosing his second election to that famous scoundrel and whiskey drinker, and war hero, Andrew Jackson.

"Old Hickory" was a supporter of slavery and Indian removal, but also managed to reduce the federal debt to the lowest it had been since the establishment of a federal government. Jackson hated the electoral college, was constantly calling for the abolition of it, and was fiercely opposed to a national bank and was directly responsible for the demise of The Second Bank of the United States. There was the "nullification crisis" where South Carolina declared by the authority of its own sovereignty, the Tariffs of 1828, and 1832, null and void within the boundaries of South Carolina. This crisis formed a united state in South Carolina that would become the first state to succeed from the Union that led to the Civil War.

The 8th President was the first "American born citizen" in Martin Van Buren. He presided while the Panic of 1837 happened, reversed many of Jackson's policies, denied Texas' formal request to join the Union, saw the trial of the Amistad, and oversaw the "Trail of Tears" where the Cherokee were expelled from their lands.

William Henry Harrison, as the 9th President, was the shortest Presidency in U.S. history but he is known for giving the longest inaugural address in the history of Presidents. He took the oath of office on March 4th, 1841, and by April 4th he was dead. John Tyler succeeded as President, and once becoming President, he stood against his own party's platform, vetoing several acts, but did annex the Republic of Texas in 1845. While Presidents were commonly known as His Presidency, Tyler was derisively known as "His Accidency" and after his veto of Tariff Bill in 1842, The House of Representatives initiated the first impeachment proceedings in U.S. history. The impeachment ultimately failed, but his re-election effort proved more than he could handle, and he withdrew from the race and threw his support behind James Polk.

Polk, being the 11th President, was controversial in that the abolitionist saw him as an instrument of slave power, and owned slaves his entire life, much like several Presidents before him, however the issue of slavery was becoming quite contentious in the U.S. by the time Polk was elected, and he presided over the War with Mexico. Zachary Taylor became the 12th President and the last one to hold slaves while in office. 16 months after taking office Taylor died. Millard Fillmore ascended to the Presidency, but failed to win re-election as a Whig Candidate and a member of the "Know Nothing Party" which was a strong anti-immigration movement of that day.

Franklin Pierce became the 12th President but suffered much criticism for his policies, dividing a country all ready deeply divided, he became known as one of the worst Presidents in U.S. history. However, he does not remain singularly the worst President and his successor James Buchanan is also considered one of the worst Presidents in history due to his spectacular failing in handling the crisis that led to the Civil War.

Abraham Lincoln, as the 16th President, presided over the Civil War, sacrificed states rights to keep the Union together and was assassinated in 1861, the U.S. not being even 100 years old yet. Deeply divided from the very beginning, some how the American Experiment seems to survive in spite of its long, steady march towards tyranny. The Civil War led directly to the 14th Amendment, and changed the political landscape of America for years to come. Running out of space in this post, I will leave you with this brief history of a Union deeply divided, rife with intrigue, conspiracies, and much political strife.

reply to post by Janky Red


I don't believe tyranny is kept in check simply by having two sides of a coin. Why should their only be two sides? Why aren't their 10 sides? 20 sides? 1000 sides?

There should be an infinite number of sides to choose from and because of this, there should be no two people grouped together as a believer of so and so. It doesn't help that people actually play into the system and find pride in announcing that they are a conformist - this goes for any Republican or Democrat who blinding follows and believes their "sides" versions of reality instead of creating their own.

There can be debate and argument without the conformity we see today, the type which will ultimately lead to our downfall.


reply to post by Misoir


You misread. I clearly said I was NOT a Communist, nor did I ever support Communism from an American standpoint. However, I am mature enough to admit that the philosophy behind Communism has its perks, and if implemented in the way it was TRULY intended, it would be the best political system. However, history has proven that leaders are incapable of seeing the Communist Manifesto's legacy out until the end, instead hell bent on furthering their own iron fists and deepening their own pockets.

However, the rest of your posts reflects the point I am trying to make. We are so stuck on options that are given to us that we are incapable of coming up with NEW ideas that perhaps haven't been tried, ideas that just might be successful in the betterment of humanity and the country.


reply to post by Rynocerous7


Couldn't agree more. I'm sure a lot of the talking heads for the political spectrum are geniuses in their own right; after all they would have to be in order to pull the wool over the eyes of the people for so long.

However, I think it would be a cold day in hell before the icons for the parties decide to throw down the hatchet and actually work outside of partisan politics. We need to focus on ourselves before we ever have faith in THAT pipe dream.



reply to post by hawkiye


I couldn't agree with you more hawkiye. People are too hell bent on forcing things upon others that they don't realize that before long, everyone is forced into doing things they don't want to do and then there is nothing you can do about it.

I have a strong belief in freedom and I suppose making everything voluntary would be the answer to that call. To further stress on your example of socialism - I see no reason why socialists should not be able to form their own communities that run on a socialist structure - in fact I wouldn't doubt if people already have done so.

People always ask what freedom we really lost over the years and I keep telling them that we lost the biggest freedom of all: the freedom to choose. We are no longer allowed to make our choices in life to be alone or to opt out of the system - we aren't allowed to choose where are tax dollars go or if we go to war. Are politicians ignore us and though we get to choose who makes it into office - we cannot choose what they vote for and they have no obligation to keep us in mind.

The freedom of choice was killed by the political divide and slowly but surely, all the other freedoms will follow, though none will be quite as drastic as that one.



reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Thank you Mr. Zodeaux for the history lesson. It always intrigues me to read about American history and we cannot deny the strife that this country has been through in the past.

With that in mind, while ultimate the strife and separation in this country led to the succession of states and the Civil War, I do not believe we will see so much today. I believe that humans today are much different than past generations and would not react in the same way.

For starters, I do not believe any states will secede, and if they attempt to they will be victims of federal government power schemes to prevent anything from happening. Therefore, as times get worse, the Union will grow weaker but it will remain together.

Seeing the weakness of the state, the only source that people will look towards in order to fend off the policies and ever reaching hand of the federal government, the people will lose faith in state politics as one by one each state government falls victim to more and more breaches of the 10th amendment. Soon after, much like the Civil War, violence will ensue but it will not be along state lines.

The societal structure of America will break down at the core and will create a political war of left wing vs right wing, in which people will begin to destroy one another based on the ideologies that they have been led to believe. The American government will try to get involved and thus the war will become three sided, and the military will be unable to side with one movement over the other.

Unable to quell both sides of the ticket, the military will more than likely disband and join with their respective sides. Eventually, government will have no protectors and they will be ousted and be unable to be replaced. America will fall into a chaotic anarchy with random spats of violence and the occasional vigilante groups trying to procure justice. Promises of a restored government will float around for years but it will never happen and more than likely, other countries will try to take a piece of the union for themselves.




This of course is worse case scenario. This is IF war were to break out, and if you think it cannot that you are blinded by the media spin. The Civil War proved that this Union was and still is fragile when it comes to states and human rights. The political divide only deepens the fragility of the entire scenario and makes it that much more impossible to recover from unless we wake up from the system and start implementing individual thought over the conformist issues.

reply to post by Janky Red


If the two parties keep passing more orders and legislation without repealing the last party in powers orders and legislation and both keep piling on reasons to tax and garbage to overspend on how do they guarantee the US never gets to a point of totalitarianism?

One party passed the Patriot Act and another renews it. One party puts education under federal control and nobody repeals it despite constant promises to do so. One party spends us into oblivion and the other just looks for ways to keep that amount of money flowing without ever considering cutting that oblivion level spending.

They both seem to be acting as one authoritarian party. Two labels with one constant driving force. Power and money.

Show me a party that's about thrift and liberty.

There hasnt been any substantial check/balance in over 80 years.

The most radical anyone ever gets in Washington is when deciding how to spend more money it doesnt have or how to impose federal will on peoples lives. They argue over which pit to toss the billions into or which facet of daily living should be regulated more. Nobody ever says "how about we dont spend any money and dont regulate peoples lives" Well, occasionally somebody does but it never amounts to anything.

It's one party and one goal. Authoritarians working toward totalitarianism.

Originally posted by gwydionblack
And so, people will do nothing. They will THINK that they are doing something but ultimately, the closed mindedness and lack of individual thought has created, and will continue to create a nation of sheep. People will continue to believe what they want and spew hate towards any side that is different than theirs instead of actually accepting the fact that individual beliefs of each and every person CAN coexist with the other without forced issues....


I ask - who else is with me?

I, sir, stand with you at arms.
Well thought out thread and many flags and stars too you, gwydion.
You have one thing right, my friend...
The sheep are doing exactly what they are supposed to.
Spend money.
Feeding the machine.
Obsessed with television and the latest trend, these people will never know what its like to have to fight for something in their entire lives.

They are programmed.

Want to prove my point?
Sit down with someone who loves any TV show and watches it religiously.
Then take it away from them.

See what happens.

Great posts in here, all of them!

Keep up the good work...

Originally posted by gwydionblack
I ask - who else is with me?

I am.

That was an EXCELLENT post! I have nothing to add right now, but I will be watching this thread, as I think it's one of the best on ATS lately. We need to think about this stuff instead of trying to make a case for one side or the other! Our country is quickly becoming something SO foreign to what I think the framers intended - it's just an ugly mess of corruption, hatred, incompetence and chaos.

Great post!

Politics is like religion, a fungus that infects and invade everything while those that spread the fungus reap the benefits of everybody else fight to take sites.

We are the losers in both ends.

I always find the topic of "political divide" fascinating and a bit ironic.

America was born because of political divide.

America has survived because of political divide.

America will not die because of political divide.


America has "died" multiple times depending on your perspective...but in the same respect it has been "re-born" for another group with a different perspective.


Change is hard...it doesn't go smoothly...but it is not the end of the world.

reply to post by Janky Red


I agree with your fundamental premise, that it was what was orchestrated polarization that has keep the country on a reasonable tact.

In terms of business, I have always found it useful to organize my teams in such a manner that the ends of the spectrum were on different sides of the debate on purpose. The sales folks who want to push the envelope and promise anything they can in terms of a product specification and the delivery/build guys on the other side who are tasked with creating the product and supporting it. They tend to be too conservative and lack innovation. By getting the two together you reach a point where you can actually innovate in a way that you have a supportable product. In other words, you can meet in the middle and every one gets what they want, including the client.

The difference now is that in order for that to happen you need a leader who understands the value of that divide and purposefully manages it. Equal respect is given to both sides and both sides are assumed to have value to bring to the table.

That requires leadership and it is that leadership that we are sorely lacking and have been lacking for many years. Both sides demonize the other and political victorys are seen as an opportunity, not to work with other sides to get something done, but rather to advance a naked agenda, which includes disrespect of the other side.

Early in the last century, probably to the Eisenhower administration cabinet leaders were typically not polarizing figures. They were competent leaders who were skilled at advancing the President's agenda. They were not political hacks. They were not choosen due to some requirement to have diverse representation in the executive branch. Today, all of those appointments are political, tossing spiff to one group or another. That pressure group process of putting senior people in one group or another is what is driving the radical agenda of administrations. I think there are many radicals in the current administration. I think there have been radicals in every administration since Nixon. William Bennett was a right-wing, religous radical. Both sides do it.

The problems the US faces are not insurmountable, but they do require both sides to work together. In order for that to happen, you need someone who has a demonstrated ability to lead and get things done, pissing folks off on both sides of the spectrum.

Right now, it is not the sides that are destroying us. As you say, the sides are almost there by design. It is the increasing power of the extremes of the sides, the marginalization of moderates and the failure of the country to elect a real leader with vision who can actually execute policys, first by articulating them and selling them and secondly by creating a team to execute them.

There are two polar opposite visions of the country at the moment and nobody to unite those groups with the partys to reach common ground. The extremes view victory as an opportunity to cram their agenda down the throat of the country as quickly as possible to create intractable elements of government policy. The the next group does it and so on.

It is the failure of leadership that is destroying the country, not the ideas and agendas of the polar opposite side of the debate

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


I have to agree with you, too. Political division is WHY the US was formed.

How frustrating! I can't even take a side as to whether our division is good or bad for us! What you say is true, but I can't help thinking that the current division (as illustrated on ATS) is a disease that has spread and affects everyone in a negative way...

reply to post by havok


Thanks for the support, but the few supporters of such philosophy will fall victim to majority rule by the divided masses.

And your point is well noted, people are brainwashed as is clear to most everyone here.


reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Thanks for the comments, and I couldn't agree more. I believe the Founding Fathers promoted division for the sake of all sides being represented, not the sake of one side being represented and forced upon all others.


reply to post by OutKast Searcher


America has survived off of healthy political division. What we see today is not healthy. We have 3 sides - two conglomerates who pain the world as black and white (Liberals and Conservatives) and a vastly outnumbered third group that see things in color but don't have enough support to test new theories and actions, because they are monopolized by the former two.

America has only "died" once, and that was the day that people decided that government should have a say in every single aspect of their lives. That was the day when political ideologies became ENFORCED LAWS rather than just that - ideologies.

Thus the America we have today is not fit for the free thinker. We are raised with laws that promote certain ideologies and beliefs and we are shunned should we stray away from that. Some laws we have no one could even answer truthfully as to WHY we have those laws besides the age old commentary of "That is just the way it is." What ever happened to questioning "WHY is that the way it is?"

Whatever is "re-born" of America based on forced ideology and limitations of freedoms isn't America, it is something else. Where once a resilient, self minded, self governing people lives - there now resides a society based upon handouts and free support for the things that Americans once considered daily life and survival. We as human beings in America have been led to become incompetent and incapable of self sufficiency so that we have to rely on government to do it for us, and in exchange we allow them to mold and shape our ideologies for us - giving us only 2 choices to choose from.


So, OutKast Searcher... I beg the question - do you feel that the political divide on ATS is a healthy one even though it is quite clear that it is hindering progress and distracting from the real issues at hand?


reply to post by dolphinfan


You are quite right in that we need a leader who will actually LEAD us with a purpose. However, there are many, including myself, that thought Barack Obama would be that leader only to be given more of the same and in some cases, even worse that leaders before him.

As a candidate to be our leader, you are allowed to say whatever you would like and stand on whatever platform you wish, but once you are elected as the POTUS then you are committed to no platform and can act in whatever agenda you feel like. Thus is where the political divide becomes so dangerous. You have Republicans and Democrats running for office based on the "key" issues of the party, the insignificant issues that distracts the people, and all the while - the main agenda is the same. People "fall" for candidates based on the connection with their own beliefs, but in the end it doesn't really matter. The President or any other office holder will do as he or she wants when the time comes.

In addition to the political divide it is also a sentiment to the failure of human morality and integrity, where a day cannot be done without a lie.



reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Political division IS why the US was formed, however it was also based on individualism and the expression of rights. Thanks to the extreme political division that has been birthed in America, the two side system as forced us all to live under the ideals of whichever one happens to be in power, leaving no room for a third group to live. The US wasn't about being forced to live one way for 4 years and then change it every 4 years. It wasn't about being FORCED to do anything.

Issues such as abortion, marriage, and drug use - anything that should be a personal choice - should not have any part in our government policies. I mention those three because they are the most popular but there are thousands more.

One person might feel that abortion is bad - therefore THEY DON'T HAVE TO DO IT! One person might feel like it is an option - therefore THEY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO WHAT THEY WANT. If either side feels like they could be of use persuading the other side to change, then by all means they can exercise their first amendment, but nowhere in the Constitution or in the minds of the Founder's was the government ever given the right or the task of FORCING US TO DO ANYTHING.

The political divide is the solidification of just that - the force of will upon the individual.

No matter which side you choose - politics has become about forcing the PERSONAL WILLS of certain people over the personal wills of others. That isn't politics... that is slavery and that is what it has become. Until people open their eyes and realize that others don't have to think like you for it to be OK, this division will only separate us more and the scenario I stated in by last post will be inevitable.