Forget about it.

Haven't we evolved out of the tribal my team vs your team mindset?

No, we haven't. Everyone has there biases. The difference is that we don't need to club each other over the head when we disagree, but try to resolve differences using logic, reason, rehtoric and when necessary force.

Why would we have? Like it or not, a group is stronger than an individual. If you're willing to compromise on something you don't care about (say, gay rights) in exchange or more power towards something you do (say, privatized social security), then it makes sense to align yourself with a political party.

Not that there aren't negative consequences, of course...

Why waste time with the preliminaries?

I say skip directly to the "necessary force"!

But, for example, we don't have to call the other side evil, right?

It was pretty obvious to me that the elections are sporting events. You keep score, you have commentators, you have a few head to head matches, you have elimination rounds.

The whole spectacle is about the same as the Superbowl or the World Series in both character and content.

~The whole spectacle is about the same as the Superbowl or the World Series in both character and content.~

except that there is a difference in the number of killings that the stars of each sport can get away with (think OJ vs. GWB - 1 family vs. 1000s)

Not only have we not "evolved" out of this, but we never will.

Think about it. Suppose that it turned out that 75% of Americans believed that, say, painting houses purple should be prohibited. Would one party resign itself to losing elections because of its "purple is beautiful" stance? No; instead both parties would strive to outdo each other in setting penalties for purple-house painters.

By the very nature of the two-party system, the two parties will always strive to stay evenly balanced, because neither one wants to always lose. To take a more contentious issue than the purple house one: All it would take for opposition to abortion to become the stance of both parties is for more than 50% of Americans to absolutely and consistently refuse to vote for a pro-abortion candidate.

No, because even then there are staistical fluctuations. Some local candidates might win or lose based on their stance on abortion.

> By the very nature of the two-party system

Is there something that makes a two-party system endemic to the States?

Because two is unusual number, isn't it - in most countries, it's either one, or several?

Well, if we were evenly divided among three or more, we'd have to form alliances or even *shudder* make compromises.

It's endemic to our "winner take all" system of government. There's only 1 World Series Trophy, only one President of the United States.

Don't Americans usually vote for different parties for the the President and Congress so that they could veto each other forever?

Congress is voted in in 435 seperate elections. I don't really think we (the citizens) are organizing things on that level.

IMHO human nature is about duality: "like me" vs. "not like me"

Philo

Damn yellowists!

Evolved out of it!? We haven't even evolved out of My Team is better than Your Team.

I find it hopeful that we are identifying as Republicans and Democrats (and Independents, and Greens, and...) instead of identifying as Marylanders and Floridians.

Humanity is tribal. Still. The only way I see to combine sanity and tribalism is if you can see all human beings as members of your tribe. That's what Jesus did, I believe.

Then you have to keep the members of your tribe who disagree that YOU are a member of THEIR tribe from killing you. This is really hard.

Cats are Democrats, Dogs are Republicans:
http://www.kirktoons.com/october_2004/cartoons.html
Safe for work and one of the funniest political cartoons you will ever see.

"we disagree, but try to resolve differences using logic, reason, rehtoric and when necessary force. "

I bet you and your mindsets forces you to use force all the time hey? proud to be poping in "kill 'em all" and shooting some Iraqis huh?

You're just a fucking idiot.

Dan,

I see you're a beacon of logic and reason. What happened to that "liberal enlightenment" that you lefties always claim to have received from the university? As soon as someone disagrees with you or challenges your presuppositions, you get defensive and start hurling your insults and accusations of "hate speech". Doesn't seem very educated to me...

Right wing asshats like you only know guns - don't tell me you understand logic, you don't possess the intellectually capacity to be able to process logic.

"Right wing asshats like you only know guns - don't tell me you understand logic, you don't possess the intellectually capacity to be able to process logic."

Dan, Dan, Dan. Surely you can see the irony in this statement. It calls for logical debate, then uses an illogical attack.

If we adopt the tactics of the Conservatives to fight the Conservatives, we have achieved nothing. Well, not nothing really, I hope you at least felt a little better after letting off some steam. But you made the more moderate side look ridiculous.

"But you made the more moderate side look ridiculous."

<g> I dont see how, denny is to the more moderate side as a raging bush fire is to a campfire.

seriously, Id say that the guy has the same intelligence level as a drooling moron, except that I have a cousin who actually *is* a drooling moron, and when he does bother to speak he does so more lucidly and with greater evidence of deep thought than den boy.