Can the conflict between Democrats and Republicans be ended by any means other than forming two countries?

Question

Understand that we're talking about two sides who are both sure that they have the plan that works and the moral high ground. We're not going to wake up one day and suddenly be of one collective moderate mindset and frankly, I'm tired of seeing what I consider a very moral and ethical worldview on my part dismissed by strangers on the web as being anything but moral or ethical.

Short of something like, "Well, I'd like Democrats if they just weren't so evil" or "I'd agree with Republicans more if they'd just stop trying to make everyone just like them and would agree to move completely from oil as a resource and oh, yeah, would support a woman's right to choose" (in other words, you'd like them if they'd just be Democrats) what is there that could possibly mend these fences at this point?

Answer 1

Being a libertarian, where am I supposed to live? I think we should form more than two countries since I would not want to reside in any country that is primarily composed of modern day republicans or modern day democrats.

EDIT:  I'll take one state and share a border with you and Maher:)

Answer 2

Last time that happened it ended in a war won by the republicans.

Today Lincoln would be torn to shreds in our modern politics, honest Abe my @$$, he lead an attack on a nation that tried to secede peacefully, if you want him, go ahead and have him. He only freed the slaves to make them a nuisance for the south and had plans to deport them until he got shot.

As little as 150 years ago even our politicians were still having duels, maybe YOU ought to pick a history book, the world and America of the past isn't the rosy picture your trying to paint it as.

Answer 3

Political life, just as our personal lives, are constantly full of struggles and battles. At any given time, one side may be ahead or behind. I don't find that to be a problem as much as the idea that we don't seem to be able to have a meaningful dialogue and discuss the issues in an open forum without the name calling. The question becomes why are the liberals so afraid to compete in a free an open exchange of ideas without falling back on name calling as opposed to voicing what they believe and logically backing it up.

Answer 4

i was hoping they all moved to canada after the last election like many of them said they would, but yet again they lied

Answer 5

I think that people would live in divided nieghbourhoods and inevitably hostilitys would emerge. The are political groupings not two sperate ethinicities. The geography would inevitably be complicated. I imagine neighbourhoods would becom flashpoints if one minority outnumbered another.Where would the borders be drawn  And what of those who want to remain where they lived are they forcibly to be removed.

Looking at the history of places like Northern Ireland where this sort of binary thinking exist we see that the US is humane in comparison. Your solution is of intolerance and would lead to intolerance. At leas people are debating rather than killing eachother and telling each other where to live. A greek philosopher once said strife is the mother of change.

This is no less than dictatorship versus democracy when idealists from each camp want to purge the other. It is the sort of thinking were people cannot dissent and debate that leads to stagnant dead end societies like Zimbabwe and the Stalinist bloc in eastern europe.  

Answer 6

America is better than that.  While I think Obama is a joke, if he wins....he'll be my president and I'll be fine (just a bit more taxed).

Answer 7

There is another side to the argument.

By having 2 strongly opposing arguments, it keeps the political process healthy.  This can be a good thing in small doses. (But I think the length of the Presidential contest is way too long - the sides run out of arguments to make and substitute a war or attrition, which isn't healthy)

It would be helpful if the level of education was raised in the US - some of the people down there are believing the most ridiculous stories.  A more educated population would require the 2 sides to raise their level of debate.

As for mending fences, I'm not sure that would be a good idea.  America, as any country, benefits greatly when there is open fighting amongst the alternative forms of government.  You don't want to tamper with that - it's healthy.  Shorten it, as I have suggested, but not extinguish it.

Answer 8

No we will just live together like the people in this country have done for over 200 years of American politics! I disagree with your opinion of the sides in the political arguement. Problems used to be solved with guns in America. Some times they still are. Yet we have endured, even through a civil war. I can handle someones sharp tongue and attacks. As can most Americans.

Answer 9

Plato said that the truth comes form the Dialectic, the debate between opposing sides.

Many politicians push the view that the other side has little to offer, but in reality the differences are less than the similarities and everyone can get along.

There are some issues that people disagree on, or which society or individuals are dealing with or there is change in society.

For this reason we need people with opposing points of view.

Embrace the face people can say bad things about your points of view...the alternative is China where you can say whatever you want, if you don't mind being arrested and tortured.

So I would like to say you are a small minded, biggoted, son of a hair ape and please feel free to call me me a muddle headed, tree hugging, uncle of a warthog

and then I can buy you a beer and we can celebrate that we can do this...we can celebrate freedom.

Answer 10

We end it every four years by holding an election.  My point is your question is hyperbole.  The "conflict" only really rages during the elections.  If YOU knew anything about our history you would realize this adversarial system is a part of it.  Its not ideal but it certainly beats a "one party system" like China, doesn't it?