democratic recipe for instability

Given the plurality of voter groups in the United States, there will always be a tension between this situation on the ground and the need for unity in the nation. This unity can be achieved through political leadership and truly representative government. Leadership in this context means creating the unity of subgroups within the party plus the inclusion of those who side with the party but do not wish to be members. How many such "unities" exist in any one country varies, but in the US we have only two parties, though we have a multitude of subgroups. So each party must unify a mass of subgroups, something that is more difficult for the Democratic Party. Generally speaking two parties are a recipe for stability. But the political battle must be combined with a bipartisanship that recognizes the danger of a "winner take all" attitudes, like that which we have had over the past seven years. This attitude is more like that which we find in African countries, hence their tremendous instability. Obama believes he can achieve a change in the direction of bipartisanship thereby restoring a government "of the people", at least the majority of the people. On the other hand, for stability to be achieved, the party that loses an election must accept this loss rather than simply play the role of "naysayers" in Congress as the Democrats have been doing. The past seven years of absolutely divisive government has to be remedied. America needs it, and indeed the world that expects a unifying American role in terms of foreign policy also wants American leadership in a highly unstable international environment. This internal unity, as well as international cooperation in cooling down tensions cannot be achieved by Condi style photo-op handshaking. Neither will it be achieved by Bush's "yahoo" style sound bites that generate and feed hostility. It will be achieved through strategic clarity concerning what can be achieved in the near future and what is absolutely not acceptable in any given situation. For example, the spread of nuclear weapons as permitted by Bush in the case of India and Pakistan (now a highly dubious situation) can be considered an absolute NO NO. However, it must be recognized that nuclear power has essential non-military uses in the economic development of the Third World. After all the US and Gr. Britain are engaged in an expansion of nuclear power. So how can it be denied to other economies? It is true that conversion of civilian nuclear power to military use is now possible. Hence we have a difficult situation re what is a NO NO and what could be in the interest of economic development worldwide. We must be willing to try and find a strategic way around this dilemma. Obama may or may not be able to make such strategic moves at home and abroad. As for the Republican Party, its leadership role has been undermined from within. And McCain, poor fellow may have been interesting in the past but since he became the new leader... he is mr. flipflop supreme and can only create the appearance of unity. The Party is in dire need of a new ideological development focused on its traditional role. That is economic development not just for corporations, but for the people of America, again two elements that have a natural tension between them, but a tension that can be strategically negotiated. The Party has to clean up its act at the national level especially, and set aside the "winner take all" approach. If it does that over the next four years, it will be able to lead us to many victories in the future. For now, it must accept a loss while playing a positive role in restoring a government of the majority of Americans.