Will their timetable, or even their thesis be correct? Time will tell, but at least on the thesis I would not be surprised if the authors were right.

I think “me and mine” is both an ideology and an attitude. It’s how people interact one with another. Civil War ideology (please excuse the BROAD generality): If you believe in slavery, you fall outside my group of people to care for. Basically, pro-slavery v. anti-slavery. I look out for the anti-slavery people to the exclusion of the pro-slavery people. If you don’t fit into “mine”, you fall outside my group of people to care for. Basically, “me and mine” v. 299,999,997ish other people. The other 299 Million people are looking out for themselves to the exclusion of the other 299 million.

A question has come to my mind of what kind of crisis could unite the nation? After 9-11, the nation came together for an entire 2 or 3 months. WOW! Earth-shattering! No, after the few months of flag-waving, people began again to look out for number one, even more so when the next crisis came along of the stock market tumble. Nothing seems to unite the nation. Katrina didn’t do it, it inflamed racial tensions. Rita didn’t do it, it inflamed political tensions. Give me any kind of crisis, and I bet I can guess where the finger-pointing will start.

Sorry, long comment. I hate politics.

On the other hand, perhaps there is something to the overgrown forest analogy. It may be that it takes the fire of a crisis to burn away the many issues which are not as important as they might seem in a time of relative ease (war on terror notwithstanding).

WWII and the Civil War were caused by two opposing ideologies. The current status of the US is that we’re looking out for me and mine which results in roughly 100 million opposing ideologies. The nation can’t repair itself as long as everyone is looking out for number one. We don’t have a leader who can unify the nation; someone will oppose him simply because it is their right to do so. The only solution is similar to a forest that has become overgrown; there will be a fire in which all the ideologies are cleaned out to be replaced by … what, shall I wax religious, or would that offend somebody’s ideology?

I think you are right about the need to be able to disagree with the ideas while avoiding hatred for those who express them. I guess it’s a little bit of “hate the sin but love the sinner.”

So I would ask – how much chance do you think we have of changing the tone of our public discourse?

I will have to take a look at Empire.

However, the more time I spend talking with people about their opinions, the more I find that most are like you and me – passionate about their ideals, yet not hateful against those that disagree. Unfortunately, as with most things, the squeaky wheel gets the grease – all the attention is paid to those that make the most noise because they are angry and hateful.

We hear all the time about the rivalries between the two major political parties, but it’s mostly really only seen in political and media circles. I have many friends that disagree with me terribly when it comes to politics or religion or even food preference, but then we agree on so many other things such as the importance of family, the value of hard work, love of the written word, etc.

I once had to submit to “diversity training”, as a condition of employment with the State of Missouri. It was mostly a waste of time, but one experience stands out as an important lesson learned: In that training we were randomly paired with another person with whom we were given five minutes to discover and write down five major differences and five important similarities between us. Simple enough. After our allotted time expired, we rotated partners and repeated the experience with others. After 12 partners in an hour, it became very easy to see that though I disagreed with everyone on some things, I also agreed with everyone on other things. Someone that disliked my politics shared interests in computers. One who thought computers were impossible and hated to use them, shared my love of classical music. The fact is that no matter how many reasons we can find to disagree with, or even dislike others, if we’re patient and willing, we can always find common ground.

I wasn’t there and haven’t read enough of the history to know for sure, but I would bet that the average citizen in the 1860s didn’t feel the hatred and vitriol that lead to war. My guess is that the squeaky wheel – the most vocal among us – were able to sway public fervor for or against them until the pressure built to bursting. It can be avoided if we learn to despise and detest actions, but not people. Disagree with Bush, but don’t hate Bush; Think Michael Moore has told lies, but don’t despise Michael Moore; etc.

If you’re interested in one man’s take on where our current political divisiveness could lead, if left unchecked, take a look at Orson Scott Card’s book called Empire (I think the full title is A Disturbing Look at a Possible Future Empire). It’s a compelling read – more of a science fiction/adventure story than a treatise on politics, but surprisingly thought provoking.