You have to go back to 1788, during the height of the political debate over a Constitution to replace the Articles of Confederation, to find an answer. The issue of national political parties as a way to organize political power was debated, hotly.  There was a school of thought that wanted to ban these  ”factions,” as they were called. But, concerned about the negative implications of denying the freedom to band together for political purposes, the Constitution was silent on political parties.

In the 212 years since then, a two party system has developed in this country, which controls the entire election process. While there is a certain logic to this system, there is an unintended consequence which now pollutes politics from top to bottom. It is this pollution that the Tea Party, independents and many party members feel but cannot describe. It is, simply, that all politicians are expected to hold their allegiance to the party, and not the electorate they represent, or even the United States itself.

Reliant on political parties for campaign financing, committee assignments and support for their own pork, politicians, even those who enter politics with honorable intentions, eventually have to cave to “the cause.” The problem is, the cause they are required to cave to, is not in the best interests of anyone, save the party itself.

This explains why the Tea Party movement spans both parties, why a party with only 12% of the voters can win the “safest” Senate seat in the country. Americans are tired of partisanship. They elected a man who promised an end to partisanship, only to become the most partisan president since Theodore Roosevelt. It explains why the discontent in America has been growing since Ronald Reagan left office in 1993.

The message to the president, Congress and political parties, is simple. Pledge allegiance to the United States and your electorate, or face political obsolescence. And, soon.

But, it involved compromises that strained the new republic at the seams, especially as regards slavery. The strain was so great, that it ended up with eleven states seceding from the union. It took a devastating war fought within its borders resulting in heavy military and civilian casualties to reunite the United States. Wars in the late 19^th and early 20^th Centuries solidified the reformed country by focusing on common external enemies.

Keeping the country together through World War II, Korea, and the subsequent Cold War was relatively easy. But, since the Vietnam War, the country has continued to drift politically. We are now defined as Red States and Blue States. This is more than a distinction driven by election results; there are fundamental differences in core values. Just travel from South Carolina, one of the reddest states, to California, one of the bluest, and you will see that differences that are so vast as to be irreconcilable on issues like abortion, gun control, health care reform, separation of church and state.

Keeping an increasingly diverse 50 states together is not an easy task, and one that is not fully appreciated for its difficulty. Staying in control is a difficult job for the political leadership. It is an art, not a science, nor is keeping the country unified a given.

In many ways, 9/11 was an opportunity for America to reunite once again against a common foe. But, as we approach the 10^th anniversary of the most devastating attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, the drift has begun anew. George Bush, a moderate conservative president, was able to find common ground, as did Bill Clinton, and his father. Even the feckless Jimmy Carter avoided causing deep divisions despite a very left wing orientation.

Obama is different. He has not shied in the slightest from confrontation, despite campaign rhetoric that he would re-unite the country. This nation is more deeply divided than it has been since before the Civil War. It is so bad that the governor of the second largest state, Texas, has talked openly about secession. There are secessionist movements in several states and twelve state legislatures have passed legislation re-asserting State’s rights.

Even if a unifying event such as 9/11 occurs, there is no guarantee that the nation will unite under Obama. The left and right are not in agreement as to what an appropriate response would be, so whatever he would do would further alienate one side or the other. We seem to be in a downward spiral that is without a foreseeable bottom.

If Obama continues to divide and govern as irresponsibly as he has, pushing legislation that is unpopular and locking the GOP out of the process, the political divide will continue to widen. There is no good that can come of what may be Obama’s greatest threat, failing to keep the fabric of the nation from unraveling.

A recent Facebook post by a friend of mine, and the ensuing dialog with her liberal friends, are a crystal clear illustration of the most significant characteristics of the American left. In her post, this lady, who is suffering from advanced breast cancer, expresses outrage at the recent decision of the U.S. Preventative Services task force raising the age for mammograms to 50. She is so outraged that she made the entire posting upper case. An experienced writer, this indicates the depth of her revulsion for the decision.

She and her liberal friends begin to flog, deservedly so, this idiotic action, which could put millions of women in harm’s way. As the dialog unfolded, one of the participants came to the conclusion that this proved why we needed to reform the health care system and pass Obamacare.

This jaw-dropping conclusion was quickly agreed to by all those engaged in this dialog.

To most of us it is clear that this kind of bureaucratic meddling, resulting in the rationing of essential preventive health care is a flash forward to what we can expect with a government take over of the health care system. Decisions about individual health care will be taken out of the hands of doctors and patients, and relegated to rigid government rules based on economic concerns.

This dialog on Facebook also illustrates what is one of the most distinguishing characteristics of today’s American liberal, the ability to completely deny the obvious. It is a classic case of ignoring the elephant in the room.

How is the left able to pull off this incredible act of denial?

Part of the answer lies in the vilification process the left uses to advance their agenda. If they can hang a label of “evil” on the opposition, they can justify seemingly illogical conclusions by destroying the credibility of the opposition. This is why the left spends so much time attacking the people who oppose them instead of the ideas they oppose. It is much more efficient to undermine Sarah Palin, say, than it to try and counter each of her opinions individually. It avoids the need to have any meaningful dialog on the issues themselves.

Just look at the health care debate. What do you hear Democrats say when Republicans question whether it is affordable? They talk about the obscene profits earned by health insurance companies, leaving the question of affordability untouched.

This explains how Democrats and leftists can vote to pass bills they do not even read. All they need to know is that the right opposes a particular bill, and they can justify passing it. No debate is necessary.

Doubt that this is true? Go read a few of the left wing web sites, like Daily Kos and Huffington Post. You will see that they are clearly blinded to issue by hatred of those on the right.