I agree with both Amos and Little Hawk. I can do so because, being the creative type, I can see past their war of semantics, and see both the pragmatics and reality of what each is saying. That, and I just love the group hug notion of it all.

I disagree with LH when he says, "When they can unite in common purpose, then that society is at its absolute peak of capability.".

I think that the strength of having both sides is in good hard debate over issues that cannot be judged with 100% certainty. For instance:

...not only do the victors get to write history -- clouding the lessons we might have learned from objectivity...

...but each decision that is taken forever changes the ability to have ever properly, objectively judged the outcome, had the opposite side had its way.

So getting along and advancing government in the name of compromise -- uniting in common purpose -- is not in our best interest...

...but acknowledging that applications provided by the intellect of each side SEEMS to have its time and place. Sometimes government can do a task better than the private sector can. Sometimes the government is too weildy, cumbersome or even oppressive....

...and, of course, sometimes the big government we build for the purposes we agree with -- we think proper -- acquires with that growth, the power to oppress us when it becomes the government of the opposite party.