If you work for a living. . .?

Question

. . . could it be that there is no such thing as left or right politics? That there is just us?

Has there been a wedge purposely inserted to divide us? Who did it and to what end does the wedge serve best?

Answer 1

wow u lost me

Answer 2

I assume you're talking about the U.S. ...

In an election back in the 1810's or 1820's, there were five candidates running for president.  They were all Democrats - which is actually the old school name for the modern Republican Party, which was briefly called the Whig Party.  Both parties have changed a -lot- as our country developed.  You're right, though - the Parties have melted together a lot and left and right have become hard to tell apart.

Anyway, Martin Van Buren, who I think went on to become President Monroe's V.P., thought of politics as the world's best game, but he wasn't thrilled with the five-way competition between the "Democrats" for presidency.  He thought there were too many candidates of too similar beliefs.  It was his idea to divide the presidential election into a two-party system.  For a while, it worked pretty well.

Answer 3

I dont think theres a strong relationship to whether you work or not and what sort of policies you think are best for the federal government to persue.

Answer 4

Thanks..spread the word!

Answer 5

U may be right or U may be crazy

Answer 6

Not quite sure what you mean, but working for a small living I find that I am glad to support those who can't for any reason.  Those who don't work even though they can ANNOY ME! and as for those who don't work and don't even wash up or anything and live at home with their parents waiting on them hand and foot SHAME ON YOU!  they should not be allowed to vote.  Does that help?

Answer 7

There will always be differences in opinions.

Choosing sides, or making divisions, is thousands of year old.  

I don't think human kind can handle the idea of thinking the same way.

Besides, how boring!

Answer 8

What a refreshing question!  I have long held that despite their superficial and apparent differences, the Democrats and Republicans are working for the same objectives, and that those objectives will not benefit the vast majority of Americans.  Despite the lofty and inspiring speeches delivered by Barrack Obama and the anti-liberal reassurances of a secure and stable status quo by John McCain, both are beholden to the same interests, and they are not the interests of the voting middle and below-middle classes.

For example, look at the Democrats who took majorities in both the House and Senate in 2006.  They won those seats largely due to middle class Americans wanting two things:  and end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and for criminal charges and/or impeachment hearings to be brought against Bush, Cheney, and other members of the current administration.  As soon as the election results were obvious, and I mean before the polling booths closed on the west coast, both the Democrat victors and all of the news corporations began to spin the win into a call for a higher minimum wage and universal health care.  Now the value of these two goals may be obvious to some and debatable by others, but what is not debatable is that these two issues are not what won the Democrats a congressional majority.  These were not the issues candidates campaigned on, and these were not the issues burning in the b*****s of voters as they took to the polls.

In another example, let's look at the Republican Revolution of the 1990s, led by Newt Gingrich.  Newt fought President Clinton very publicly and openly from the standpoint of lowering taxes, smaller government, and the vilification of "tax and spend" Democrats.  During this time, whose congressional district was the largest recipient of pork barrel spending?  Newt Gingrich's.  Now certainly the Democrats could have known this and used the blatant hypocrisy to their advantage, but did they?  Did the main stream media, those valiant guardians of truth, ever bring this to the public's attention?  And when President Clinton balanced the budget, how quickly was that overshadowed by the Monica Lewinsky story?  

And it bears mention that when Clinton's impeachment was taken up in the House, many Democrats eagerly jumped into the fray with the Republican majority, despite the fact that Clinton's indiscretion was relatively harmless and truly did no harm to the nation at large, yet when confronted by a clearly criminal administration whose actions have resulted in the deaths of thousands of ill-equipped American service men and women, none of them from the families of the "elite,"  the first words from the lips of Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi were "impeachment is off the table."  Even John Conyers, who published an extensive analysis of the treasonable transgressions of the Bush administration when he was in the Congressional minority, backed down like a whipped dog when he actually had the power to do something about it.

When Bush recently drew a line in the sand for immunity from prosecution for those tel-cos that conspired with him to commit felony wiretaps on all communications from American citizens, why did the Democrats ultimately cave in and betray the voters by passing that legislation if there is truly a difference between the two parties?  And despite the fact that Congress-persons on both sides of the aisle have decried legislation they have passed that has taken away our rights and liberties more effectively than any terrorist could even imagine, neither the allegedly-conservative Republicans nor the allegedly-populist Democrats have taken any steps to repeal or put an end to any of it.

There are many groups of powerful people (the elite, as David Rockefeller--who brought into being the World Trade Center complex, incidentally--would call them) that are public and some that are secret, but all call in some fashion for the end of the "American experiment" of liberty and self-determination--so many that it is deliberately difficult to point to any one and claim they are the ones "who did it," who drove the wedge into middle America and divided us against one and other.  But it is important to recognize that most of them claim mottoes such as "divide and conquer" or "out of chaos, order."  These ideologies represent a strategy formulated in the early 1800s by the German philosopher Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, and has been used by those seeking to destroy the sovereignty of all nations and institute a world-wide, corporate government based on the current haves and have-nots.

Some would claim that all of these groups fit under one umbrella called the Illuminati, a secret society founded in 1776 in Bavaria that quickly spread through Europe and allegedly took over Scotch-rite Masonry, the Knights Templar, and the Catholic Church.

Whether one chooses to believe in the continued existence and influence of the Illuminati or not, it would be foolish