The State of the Union

    I just read an entry on A Citizen's Web Log, and he brought up the topic that debates, and politics in general, are very one-sided. I couldn't agree more. The Presidential debates were infuriating as one could not trust one side over another. What they were saying didn't even matter. All that mattered, in the end, was who "dominated" the discussion, not the truth of the material presented. But you can't blame them. It's not like they're given a chance to prove themselves during the debates, other than through childhood methods of calling the other a liar. But as for parties in general, there is no more cooperation, as one party is constantly trying to look for a reason to dislike the other party. They want to unite under that disapproval. And even if one individual believes in a policy of another party, they'll subdue their own belief for the strength of their party, just because everyone else that is mostly like-minded as they are disbelieves that sort of material. It's ridiculous.

    However, just because we are against one another does not mean we are in a bad state of union. In World War II, we were unified beyond anything we could hope to cooperate through in modern times. This is because we had to and because there was a unified "evil" for us to go against. What I'm really saying is, the fact that we are against each other in politics (and not civil war) is a good indicator that the world isn't about to collapse. There is no common evil to unite against except ourselves. And I don't believe we will ever unite once more as patriotically as before without some sort of mega-disaster that everyone across all ages, race, gender, and income can entirely relate to. Considering how the world now relies on all first world countries for business to proliferate, I can't see another conventional war happening again. So, perhaps we're screwed, and our mentality will forever be polarized. At least we're not taught to kill the other team like in the Middle East.