Of course Americans are going to disagree over less important issues. What we need to agree on are the fundamental moral values. Are we a Christian country, or not? Is abortion a heinous act of murder or a woman’s right? May the Ten Commandments be displayed on public property, or not? Is marriage soldely between a man and a woman, or not? Corpoate CEOs have fueled these arguments to their own advantage, and as a result we have a national identity crisis.

Sorry, I didn’t mention Ron Paul because I had not heard of him when I wrote this article. Yes, He does represent much of what I stand for, although I agree more closely with “Average Joe” Schriner on the issues.

Taukan Seiyo is correct that many neocons are well-intentioned idealists. They are sincerely wrong.

Patrick Mulligan, capitalism is not evil. What is evil is capitalism unhindered by ethical, moral and financial restraints.

Finally, terrorism is a crime according to the Lieber Code. Terrorists “shall be treated summarily as highway robbers or pirates”, i.e. criminals.

I agree with Patrick Mulligan and Mickey G. that differences of opinion will always exist in our society. We can disagree on affirmative action, on taxes, on military spending, on foreign aid, on social security, immigration policy, etc. The problem, as I attempted to articulate in the essay, is that Americans disagree over issues which are fundamental to the nature of our country. Are we a Christian country or not? Is abortion an act of murder or a woman’s right? Is marriage solely between a man and a woman, or not? Is it constitutional to display the Ten Commandments on public property, or not? Arguments over these issues indicate a national identity crisis–but it is corporate CEOs and lawyers who are encouraging and provoking these arguments to their own advantage. We must retain the foundation of fundamental moral values which our founders built, or we cannot be a great nation.

I’m sorry I failed to mention Ron Paul in the article. I wrote this piece in June when I had not yet heard of him. Yes, he does represent my views in many important areas. I caught this omission before mskeels pointed it out. However, I agree even more closely with “Average Joe” Schriner on the issues.

Sedonaman’s question is insulting so I will not answer it directly. The main purpose of the federal government is to promote the common good, not to spoil lazy people with goodies. Government should complement, not replace, the charity of private citizens for the deserving poor.

I also agree with Takuan Seiyo that many neoconservatives are well-intentioned Wilsonian idealists. They are sincere but sincerely wrong.

Terrorism is a crime according to the Lieber Code. Terrorists “shall be treated summarily as highway robbers or pirates”, i.e. as criminals.

Mr. Mulligan, I do not condemn capitalism anywhere in the article. What I do condemn is capitalism without any ethical, moral or financial restraints. The common good requires a modicum of regulation.

Good points, and I whole-heartedly agree that terrorism is war; however I disagree that terrorism was not war 50 years ago. I tear my hair out, too, when I hear people say it is a new kind of tactic. There is nothing new about terrorism; it has existed as long as war has. The Geneva Convention recognizes that terrorists are unlawful combatants and, as such, the “common enemies of mankind.” President Abraham Lincoln promulgated as General Orders No. 100, INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE FIELD, commonly known as the “Lieber Code” in 1863, which addresses this issue:
Lieber Code, Art. 82: “Men, or squads of men, who commit hostilities, whether by fighting, or inroads for destruction or plunder, or by raids of any kind, without commission, without being part and portion of the organized hostile army, and without sharing continuously in the war, but who do so with intermitting returns to their homes and avocations, or with the occasional assumption of the semblance of peaceful pursuits, divesting themselves of the character or appearance of soldiers – such men, or squads of men, are not public enemies, and, therefore, if captured, are not entitled to the privileges of prisoners of war, but shall be treated summarily as highway robbers or pirates.” http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/0/c4d7fab1d847570ec125641a00581c23?OpenDocument

Treatment of such “men or squads of men” has traditionally been very severe: NO QUARTER.

Unfortunately, we have encouraged terrorists by treating those captured better than a POW (legitimate combatant) would be. This sends a message that we don’t really mean business.

Likewise, I tear my hair out over our huge, multiple blunders of the Iraq war perhaps even more than you do. But you are flat wrong when you assert that terrorism is a criminal tactic. Citing history, you seem to be stuck in its pre-1960s days. You ought to read up on 4th generation warfare.

Times have changed. Now, though not 50 years ago, terrorism is war. Which does not necessarily mean that we are appproaching this war correctly or competently.

Under your plan, would federal funding for sandals for gay ex-nuns with a foot-fetish be OK? What about the deductibility of your mortgage insurance interest?

“…opposing factions emerged at the end of the 1700s representing two different opinions about the role of the federal government.”

My questions above point out that just about everyone perceives the federal government as the agent to hand out the “goodies” in whatever form they take. According to The Wall Street Journal, there is also a significant portion of the population that is willing to endure government-instituted hardships (e.g., higher taxes) if the same hardships (or greater ones, particularly) are inflicted on “the rich”.

Also, eliminating political parties will not help because the problem is not limited to the federal government. I have seen this same phenomenon at the local government level (even on homeowner association boards of which I have been an officer) were there are no political parties. (I recently attended a county regional advisory board meeting that turned into a knock-down, drag-out conflict over the wording of one simple sign.) Nor is this limited to democratic government. The Catholic Church is experiencing a similar problem since it gave the laity more say in Church matters, and I’ve noticed that it all centers around what members perceive the role the Church to be:

“Results since the (Vatican II) Council, seem to be in cruel contrast to the expectations of all, beginning with those of John XXIII and Paul VI. … The Popes and the Council Fathers were expecting a new Catholic unity, and instead one has encountered a dissension that – to use the words of Paul VI – seems to have gone from self-criticism to self-destruction. A new enthusiasm was expected, but too often there has been boredom and discouragement instead. A new leap forward was expected, but instead we find ourselves facing a process of progressive decadence. … It must be clearly stated that a real reform of the Church presupposes an unequivocal turning away from the erroneous paths that led to indisputably negative consequences.” – Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith

By changing only the names, Cardinal Ratzinger’s observation could easily apply to our society in general.

For those mature enough to recognize that there will be differences of opinion, just like we will see people embracing similar opinions banding together, we will probably continue to have political parties. Is two the right number? Probably not, particularly when they act so much alike.

Perfect harmony? Had that in the garden of Eden then that damn snake came along with snack food!

Except for a few flagship issues in which they differ(important for the appearance of difference), the common view of both parties would include ever larger government, increasing loss of liberties, expansion of American Empire and interventionism around the world, globalism, trade policies designed to benefit government/corporate unions, and the merging of the US, Canada and Mexico.

I have not left the Republican party, it has left me.

And you mention Huckabee and the like, with not one mention of Ron Paul, (who may fit what your ideal Republican candidate appears to be from your writing better than any other candidate in either party.) This is truly puzzling.

Another article speaks of Republican national candidates purposely positioning themselves as “insurgent outsiders” opposing both Republican and Democrat insiders. I don’t want elected officials who remake and reposition themselves according to some Rovian calculation; I want people who really are what they say they are.

Truly, the great majority of politically engaged Americans seem to think (if you follow the major pundits) that there is a large divide between parties, but in my estimation this has been increasingly used as a tool to divide the American people and make them think each has the moral high ground, when in reality, the underlying truths these positions appear to be based upon are an empty shell.

What ever happened to government of the people, by the people, and for the people?

Give me a break.

The reason there is division in this country now is the same reason there has been historically since its inception: people don’t all think alike, and have very different ideas of what is “good” for America. There are fundamentally different assumptions among ideological groups and individuals that cause this division. Someone who believes that the government should tax the current generation of workers to subsidize those who are not working, and then continue the cycle eternally, are fundamentally at odds with people who want to reduce the size of the government, lower taxes, and encourage personal initiative and responsibility. You really cannot have your cake and eat it too – regardless of if there’s no parties, 2 parties, or a hundred parties. You highlight these fundamental differences and then go on to say that they are incidental trivialities, exploited by the greedy, capitalist, war mongering neo-cons (the scourge of our political system that are solely responsible for dividing the nation and preventing fair minded Democrats and Republicans from getting along in perfect harmony), that we should all just “get over” to work toward the “real” issues. But what are the “real” issues? Who decides? You? What if your “real” issues are fundamentally at odds with what I see as the “real” issues? Why then we’re right back at square one, aren’t we? Congratulations, you’ve discovered that a country of 300 million people has differences of opinion. Oh, and capitalism is like way bad and stuff. What a brilliant analysis.

Transparency is needed from earmarks to campaign donations.
Civic education should be mandatory in all schools.
Term limits should be mandatory for all elected
Anything to be voted on should be published ahead of time and written in clear understandable terms.

Just off the top of my head, I am now an American solely.