The old adage, "You can't please everyone".
This to me sounds like a "chicken first or egg first" type of question.
On the one hand, political stance is intended to assuage negative and destructive forces born into each of us. Were it not so, there would be no need for laws, legislation, government and policing. In this instance, we do shape possession of power, authority and influence.
As always, there is a flip side to the coin. Any move to accomplish the above will be unpalatable to some, or many, and in the most extreme cases will inevitably lead to social chaos or civil war. In this way, conflict can be created, rather than eliminated, and usually alienates portions of society rather than integrate them, assuming they even want to be integrated.
This is why, in our current political climate, politics has served to divide the US into nearly 50/50 polarization, even though the attempts are for unification, or at least tolerance of opposition thinking.
Ours is an "adversarial" political system with built in checks and balances. But, the population has also become adversarial, with no checks and balances, outside of those charged with the responsibility of enforcing law.
It would not be unlikely, at least in my opinion, that, if not very careful, the intolerance of today can and will bring on a civil war, in addition to the culture wars already being fought between traditionalists and progressives of any political party.
2006-11-24 09:39:06
·
answer #1
·
answered by Samurai Hoghead 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
i'm no longer a great number of a rap fan, yet not often the element right here. helpful snap shots and message. It makes you watch and speaks certainty to the situation. there's no longer plenty accessible to instruct the Palestinian side of the story.
2016-11-25 21:16:06
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Your question is well spelled and punctuated but I don't understand it.
2006-11-22 09:09:29
·
answer #3
·
answered by gone 7
·
0⤊
0⤋