That's the fruit of divide-and-conquer. I'm pretty sure every American, except perhaps for the 1% for whom everything is coming up roses, feels ignored by the political process, and deeply frustrated. That feeling is universal across the political spectrum.

The problem, I think, is that we have a rigid two-party system, unlike countries with parliamentary systems that allow for a multitude of political parties. But with only two, each one tries to cover a broad spectrum of issues and opinions, and inevitably, individual party members have to compromise and settle for less than full representation, and less than full identification with the party.

And that grates, and periodically political parties have spasms of internal dissent that keep party members safely preoccupied. There's that old saying "politics makes strange bedfellows", and so far as compromise between parties to reach a decision goes, that's fine. But when you feel that your supposed party comrades are strange bedfellows, there will be strife.

Republicans right now are going through one of those phases. In the late 1970s the Democrats fell apart due to the extremism of a fringe of Leftists. I met some Leftists back then who really creeped me out; I'd like to think that Tea Partiers have that same effect today on "normal" Repubicans.

At the same time, it seems like having only two parties guarantees extreme polarization, perhaps once again as the result of manipulation: Portraying the difference between parties as so extreme keeps in line disaffected party members by making them believe that they have no palatable alternative but to stay. Or to drop out of politics entirely, which suits the political elites just fine.

I didn't invent the notion that a two-party system helps keep a lid on change and reform and protects entrenched interests. But I don't think it's a popular idea among conservatives. I'm currently reading The People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn, and he makes the strongest case I've yet encountered that American government has always been in the grip of the wealthy and powerful, from before the Revolution in fact, and continuing to this day; and that the system is manipulated to defuse and diffuse discontent.

(I guarantee that Tom will provide a character assasinationreference for Howard Zinn. Of course Zinn's a liberal, and perhaps even a leftist. If you want a viewpoint different from the steaming pile of history the public schools taught about the mind-bending wonderfulness of the USofA and the tender warm loving embrace of capitalism--you know, propaganda bullshit--where else would you look but to a liberal?)

I think we need reform that's a lot more radical than just the triumph of one party or the other (in a system that's rigged so that neither wins much and thus strife is eternal). We need to get rid of the duopoly of the two party system. What form that takes is interesting but for another time. Maybe parliamentary with many small parties, or maybe even something so radical as direct democracy. Every Man A Sovereign Senator! Yay! Think of the epic filibusters!