All this could be solved if the citizens would forget the letters after a name and campaign/vote for the right human and not the party human.

We have about 14 political parties in the US, surely we can find someone other than a D/R?

I'd rather see political parties banned outright. I want my elected officials serving the entire electorate, not just the half that belongs to their party.

This is the key, especialy when one notes the lack of differences real between R and D.
One or the other has been "thrown out" time and again with little to no corrections to, or reversals of, the poor legislation which caused the upheaval.

The problem appears to be "2" parties, controled by nearly the same interests.
Are they Republicrats or Demicans?

I don't think more parties would help. Look at Italian politics. A similar situation would tear this country apart.

Has it not, perhaps, reached the point of that being neccesary?

Tearing my country apart? :o No I don't see that as being necessary at all.

My idea of bipartanship would be making the federal govenrment so impotent that nobody without a a vested interest in public service would even run for office. Of course, we would then run the risk of having only one seriously-funded interest seriously campaigning for public office, but I think we could defeat that by having proportional representation. Couple that with a simplified and limited legal system and you have a recipe for government inaction, which is usually the best thing. The only trick is getting the right people to draft a suitably restrictive constiuton.

Its also my country and I see that as being necessary. A unified US is dangerous to itself as well as the rest of the world. This nation was founded upon the principles of decentralized power and meritocracy. We were never intended to be a nation of one mind and the bloodiest conflict we ever fought was over differences in that ideal. What's more, we fought against ourselves in that instance.

We have already seen what little regard the rest of the world has for our ideals. Our people have fought and died for the freedoms of other since WW2, much to the chagrin of the civilized world, and whatever covert agendas the state may or may not have had in mind only add fuel to the fire.

The world does not believe in our ideals, and the powerful leaders of certain states certainly don't believe in them. What then, do we do? Do we ignore the suffering of others or do we send our own to die for them?
Personally, I am more than happy to die for them, but most of the nation is not willing to make such sacrifices. We have already seen how little tolerance the US populace has for modern warfare in the Vietnam War and in both Iraq conflicts. Therefore, I think our best recourse is to lead by example. We should work to become a peaceful and non-interventionist nation. Let Europe worry about the rabble-rousers in their own backyard. At worst, we gain an excellent casus belli against any nation that attacks us. Most likely, we'll just buy ourselves some time. At best, we can profit from the conflicts of other nations and simultaneously protect ourselves through economic dominance. No nation attacks one which it is economially dependant upon, and this is doubly true because war is so expensive. I think we have a chance to win the war without fighting at all, and as Sun-Tzu said, the wise general does not fight a battle that is not already won.

Ideally, we should have begun this policy a long, long time ago, but I don't think it is too late to make it work. Many battles have been won by timely withdrawls and counterattacks, and wars are no different. Through a combination of political restructuring and foreign relations initiatives it should be relatively easy to place the US out of harm's way and simultaneously keep it as the economic center of the world, if not improve upon such a position. There are a lot of revolutionary sentiments brewing in the US already, and if we capitalize upon the inordinate media attention given to such significant but still comparitevely minor things we could well remove ourselves from the international spotlight long enough to regain an advantageous position. The world is already willing and ready to believe that the US superpower is dead, so why not encourage them? We stand only to benefit from such policy.

If US pride is your concern then I will refer you to the examples of both World Wars. In both cases the US was fractionalized and indecisive but finally entered as the saviour of nations late in the war, after reaping the benefits of selling untold tons of war material. Such a strategy would not be my ideal, but the option remains, and its success cannot be refuted.

No matter what the case is, we stand to benefit more from a de-centralized power structure and national initiative.

@UnderseaLcpl
This makes perfect sense.

I have no problem at all with limiting or adjusting the roles and responsibilities of the Federal government but, I firmly believe that without a central government our country would soon fragment into 50 independent states, 5-6 regional confederacies, or some combination of the two, and we would soon be on a path to bloody and perpetual interstate conflict that would make the American civil war a mild argument by comparison. So, to prevent that, like my ancestors before me, i'd fight to preserve the union.

*My country* is from the rocky coast of Maine to the sunny beaches of Hawaii and everything in between. I'll not stand by and let some group of malcontents change that and i'll sacrifice my life and those of my family to stop them.