[ryberg]

Originally Posted by PlayadelSoul

We could run it like Italy, 61 governments since 1945.

Well that would conform to the stereotype that Italians are famously disorganized and so forth. But of course it wouldn't have to be like that, either.

Originally Posted by Just Lucky

What I am suggesting here is that the country needs and deserves a leader who rather than getting behind public opinion actually leads public opinion. By leading public opinion and gaining support during the campaign for major programs he/she will when assuming the Presidency have the power of the people behind the agenda and be able to push the legislation through Congress. If negotiations are necessary let them be from a position of strength.

Edit: maybe we could make this the new Democratic Party slogan: Democrats were not as far right as the Republicans but we're willing to negotiate"

That's a good one -- I like that!

But again you're not allowing for very much, if any, positive connotation to the idea of compromise or bipartisanship or working together, which (don't look now!) is actually something that's very often presented in a positive light. You're still couching it in terms of selling out or being spineless -- not leading but following, as you put it above. I think you're classifying as all negative something that exists on a continuum between selling out, being spineless, pandering, etc (on one extreme) and being intransigent and stubborn and myopic and combative (on the other). I'm not suggesting that former, bad extreme, I'm suggesting avoiding the latter, equally bad extreme.

Well, and I'm suggesting maybe a bit of Realipolitik (though not in the more usual bad sense), waking up to the reality of the situation in the country today (like this division) and thereby avoiding decisions which will fail to get on the ballot and get elected candidates who could do us all some more good, which I think that latter extreme could likewise bring about.

Originally Posted by melliedee

But we do have a two party system and so far I don't see a candidate who has a hope of making this deep division dissappear? Perhaps some would be better at lessening the situation than others.

This goes to both sides, btw. If Kucinich gets painted by the right as a loony, out-of-touch hippy for suggesting that Cheney be impeached, then what are we to make of the GOP candidate afraid to raise his hand to say he believes in evolution for fear of offending the religious right? The fact the Kucinich is not afraid to speak his convictions is what I admire. Would he be the worst, most divisive choice as a nominee? Probably. But he won't get it the nomination, and right now all his honesty does is force the other candidates to speak more plainly about the issues. At least I hope it does...

Well again that "conscience of the party" function is certainly a valuable one, and good for him if that's what his function is.

As for candidates, I personally think we've already seen a couple -- Giuliani and Obama -- who by their stated views and background and actions seem, in their respective parties, like they may be something like such a candidate. And as corroboration, we've seen signs that each of them appeals to at least some in the other party. I'm not saying they're perfect, but I think they're a whole lot closer than many, many others, especially those more directly connected with the division in the past. So I'm more optimistic that they or somebody else might prove to be somebody along these lines.

Steve