Interesting article, Greg F.

I concur with the idea. The notion that we should somehow just get along -- put aside real differences instead of seriously hashing them out -- is naive at best, and a contrivance for the "progressive" movement at worst (from my POV -- after all, the notion of "getting along so that the government can DO MORE is seen only as a good thing if bigger government is one's goal)

I am all for getting rid of the 95% of public/political discourse that is this horrible, blog-driven, conspiracy-behind-every-public-issue nonsense that passes for political awareness these days. Where shooting down an opponent's ideas is the goal that has totally replaced having ideas in the first place.

But don't take away good, hard-fought, well reasoned disagreement. Don't take away a two-party system (unless you wish to replace it with a three, or four, or five....) just because you're tired of hearing "bickering".

The parties are supposed to "bicker". Political "science" is not that. It's not a science. At its best it is well-informed positions based upon greatest probabilities. I don't believe that one politician or one party has all the answers. Those positions need to be constantly and consistantly battled.