One should recall the amount of political polarization that existed between the two major parties and those in the electorate in the ’92 campaign. The fact that both a Democratic or a Republican candidate can win any election under the right circumstances supports the notion that the two parties and majority of their supporters are totally polarized in their political positions.

Any views that are opposed to either of these major parties are simply branded foolish in our own time with a chance of being wise only for posterity. Such as my anti-Statist views of the American Republic. Moreover, any passionate criticism against this Leviathan, its employees, technocrats, and sycophants are castigated away. It is alleged among these noble public servants that a calm gentlemanly demeanor is the sign of superior strength. Supposedly, they are highly moral gentlemen and women as a demanding qualification for high office as they parade their supernatural virtue for everyone to see.

Is partisanship necessarily good? Is it bad? Partisanship exists only as another artifice for politicians to charade in their “principled behavior” so that at times bipartisanship demeanor can defend their unscrupulous conduct pretending to put patriotic devotion to the public ahead of all private friendship.

Many of the Democrats don’t want a unilateral health care bill, but something to advertise as bipartisan because they already dominate Congress and the Executive, therefore they want to share the liability since they really have no sense of outcomes in their legislative larceny.

The fundamentalists of both faiths Liberal and Conservative have needed each other to reinforce each other’s prejudices and hatreds. The venom of one provides the lifeblood of the other.

Meanwhile, some Republicans have found it in fashion to be anti everything the Democratically controlled Congress legislates characterizing it as just more big government, which of course it is, but the previous 8 years brought about the biggest growth of government in history, so it is hardly an ethical leg to stand on. But many Republicans will want to share in passing some gargantuan healthcare bill since the general government takes credit for everything they themselves characterize as good.

Already, Obama has declared his government brought the American economy from the “brink” of collapse. I contend he continued what Bush started resulting in conduct that only serves to delay such a collapse which practically will at some point in our near future ensure the very thing they think they have avoided.

But universal healthcare, ah, how noble. With that everything will be made better. Isn’t it the right thing to do? That is how the “left” resorts to arguing for it when all other “reason” falls short. This again is the same thing the “right” said when invading Iraq. Isn’t it the right thing to do? It very well could be the right thing to do but it is positively something we better not do, if the essence of morality is to exercise self-restraint and not choice! Rulers must accept limitations to their rule. Much the strongest moral obligations are such as were never the results of our option.

This very uneasy equilibrium has resulted in only more government for now but perhaps one day it will also lead to a legitimate uprising that removes this burden of too big to fail government and its politics.