NationStates Jolt Archive

A house divided, it is said, cannot stand. United we stand, divided we fall. And yet, like many old clichés, they are not absolute truths. United, we can destroy ourselves. Divided, we can preserve some semblance of democracy.

It might be more appropriate to suggest that divided we cannot function. There comes a point when two opinions become irreconcilable. Debate ceases, though argument may continue. This is the state that America is finding itself in.

It’s better than the alternative. Mexico, though nominally a democracy, elected each president from the same party for fifty years, before the election of Vicente Fox in 2000. Some would say we’ve been doing the same, and by no means do I wish to disagree. It was only through division that this monopoly on power was broken.

However, look at the current debate. Two men, both of whom lived through the same era of American history. One went to war; the other served in the national guard. And here the consensus ends. Both side believes their candidate served honorably. Both side believes the other lied about their service.

Of course, I am by no means objective. I don’t believe that Bush completed his service, and nor do I believe that one can honorably serve in a dishonorable war. This, however, is irrelevant.

It hardly matters who is telling the truth. Forget the events of thirty years ago. What matters is that we cannot agree. Whatever I say, there will be republicans out there who disagree. There will be democrats who agree. Both will instantly resort to flinging metaphorical mud.

Eventually, one side might list a number of sources. CNN, NBC, the Guardian, the Observer, the BBC. Media Matters. Democratic Underground. The Free Republic. FOX. Campaign Desk. Some partisan, some not. The other side will promptly post sources of their own, which disagree. I’ll be damned before I call either of them objective.

Oh, wait. I’m already damned. Moving right along...

We can’t even agree with side which media outlet is on. Left-wing bias. Right-wing bias. They’re attacking Bush more. They’re attacking Kerry more. Unfair, unfair, unfair.

Until we can agree on unbiased sources, we will never be more than a house divided. We are too divided to agree. Further, the division of our country serves two groups of people. Republican candidates, and democratic candidates. As long as the country is divided, they’ll stay in power. When we unite, it will be against them.

The way to break the balance of power--to destroy partisanship by allowing more positions, and making multi-partisanship the only way to get anything done. Yes, the world will continue to be split between conservatives and liberals. However, it will add dimension to politics. Social, political, economic. Give the Log Cabin Republicans their own party, for business and gay marriage. Give the religious right their own party, for biblical values and theocracy. Do the same with the left. Obviously, you can’t do Infinite Parallel Political Parties, but anything is better than voting for the lesser of two evils.

If you don’t think they’re both evil, tell me why the democrats haven’t supplied a clear alternative to Bush on key issues--like the war on Iraq?

Ah, but there are only two things that could make such a change. Can you name them?

If you'd rather Bush cost America 5 million jobs and probably double the debt.

A house divided, it is said, cannot stand. United we stand, divided we fall. And yet, like many old clichés, they are not absolute truths. United, we can destroy ourselves. Divided, we can preserve some semblance of democracy.

It might be more appropriate to suggest that divided we cannot function. There comes a point when two opinions become irreconcilable. Debate ceases, though argument may continue. This is the state that America is finding itself in.

It’s better than the alternative. Mexico, though nominally a democracy, elected each president from the same party for fifty years, before the election of Vicente Fox in 2000. Some would say we’ve been doing the same, and by no means do I wish to disagree. It was only through division that this monopoly on power was broken.

However, look at the current debate. Two men, both of whom lived through the same era of American history. One went to war; the other served in the national guard. And here the consensus ends. Both side believes their candidate served honorably. Both side believes the other lied about their service.

Of course, I am by no means objective. I don’t believe that Bush completed his service, and nor do I believe that one can honorably serve in a dishonorable war. This, however, is irrelevant.

It hardly matters who is telling the truth. Forget the events of thirty years ago. What matters is that we cannot agree. Whatever I say, there will be republicans out there who disagree. There will be democrats who agree. Both will instantly resort to flinging metaphorical mud.

Eventually, one side might list a number of sources. CNN, NBC, the Guardian, the Observer, the BBC. Media Matters. Democratic Underground. The Free Republic. FOX. Campaign Desk. Some partisan, some not. The other side will promptly post sources of their own, which disagree. I’ll be damned before I call either of them objective.

Oh, wait. I’m already damned. Moving right along...

We can’t even agree with side which media outlet is on. Left-wing bias. Right-wing bias. They’re attacking Bush more. They’re attacking Kerry more. Unfair, unfair, unfair.

Until we can agree on unbiased sources, we will never be more than a house divided. We are too divided to agree. Further, the division of our country serves two groups of people. Republican candidates, and democratic candidates. As long as the country is divided, they’ll stay in power. When we unite, it will be against them.

The way to break the balance of power--to destroy partisanship by allowing more positions, and making multi-partisanship the only way to get anything done. Yes, the world will continue to be split between conservatives and liberals. However, it will add dimension to politics. Social, political, economic. Give the Log Cabin Republicans their own party, for business and gay marriage. Give the religious right their own party, for biblical values and theocracy. Do the same with the left. Obviously, you can’t do Infinite Parallel Political Parties, but anything is better than voting for the lesser of two evils.

If you don’t think they’re both evil, tell me why the democrats haven’t supplied a clear alternative to Bush on key issues--like the war on Iraq?

Ah, but there are only two things that could make such a change. Can you name them?

So because Kerry hasn't made alternative to to Bush he is Evil?

I'd rather trust the unknown(Kerry) than a guy you know is evil to paraphrase you.(You saying Bush).
Most people don't know much about Kerry. Most get misinformation from untrustable/out right lying reporters such as Rush and some Fox news outlets.

One reason Kerry han't made a clear alternative because the right would mudsling him as weak or something else. The right mudslinging are powerful. Who knew Christians could play so dirty.(besides democrats)
Kerry is trying to be caustious but he needs to take risks to beat Bush. Only trouble is how can he unbrainwash voters swept up with Bush's fear tactics.

"If you change leadership, we will be attacked again" To summarize Cheney.

I agree. But what are the two ways?

Smash it down and start again?

Massive failure of both parties to retain their supporters?

I think we are just as likely to progress from 2 to multi party system as from 2 to 1.

Evil is a logical fallacy, anyway. How can anything be evil when everything is relative? However, if Bush is evil, and Kerry is not noticeably different from Bush, then...

Now, I'm not too keen on seeing Bush elected. I don't particularly like the get-worse-before-it-gets-better argument, either. Kerry hasn't proven that he'll try and make it better. However, I don't care to enter into a discussion on the evils of not voting straight democratic.

Stick to the point, people.

Hmm...A thought provoking piece. Nice work.

I would suggest you study the last 10 years of Japan's party politic as well. It makes for an interesting counterpoint; similar to your Mexican comparison.

Take the Republican's current state, divided into Religious Right, Neo-con, Nascar-dads, Fiscal Conservatives, and various single-issue groups as the Pro-gun lobby and anti-abortion groups. Moderates on Gay rights issues and fiscal conservatives voiced considerable dissent at the GOP convention; underneath the glow of unity lies the problem with umbrella coalitions.

They do fine when fighting for power but once in power it is impossible to please everyone in your group. The main opposition party for a long time, Republicans discovered their power with the Regan era, and have been casting about for definition and direction since.

Democrats fare no better, now reduced to a collection of highly outspoken political-action groups and a huge body of silent, vaugely interested voters. The voters tend to get scared off by the more reactionary members of their own group, and their message of a moderate left...gets left in the dust. Their anger at the current state of affairs is only balanced by their lack of cohesive vision.

Unity goes beyond trust, it goes beyond investment and returns. Unity of focus is important. Both groups are so huge that that cannot agree on their focus.