Before the formation of the United States various kings and princes used religion as a tool to garner support for their particular lines of succession and expand or secure their territories. Many people are atheists today because they mistakenly believe that was actually a religious problem.
Religion turned out to be a far more wonderful and popular thing once it was taken out of the clutches of the rulers. Some people easily forget or overlook that.
Fair treatment and equality of opportunity for each of various segments of society will probably always require some meeting of minds to assess the developing issues and recommend corrections. From time to time however one particular dichotomy can be especially troublesome.
It is suggested here that the foremost dispute today is not rich versus poor, black versus white, or male versus female, although each of those might have or develop details that could benefit from corrections. It is suggested here that the main difference in society in the United States today is the intelligent versus the misguided.
At this point many of you will believe that the Democratic Party represents the "intelligent" and the Republican Party represents the "misguided." Not as many of you will believe it is the other way around. However a rather unusual problem has developed, both views are wrong. Neither the Democratic Party nor the Republican Party represents the intelligent. Both parties are misguided.
That is especially troublesome because it is locked in a mode destined to fail resolving anything. Solutions cannot be found when neither side knows what they are and indeed neither side knows what the problem is.
The problem is the way people arrive at their decisions on issues. Most people believe that they arrived at their positions by careful critical analysis of the various sources of information. However quite many of them, especially in politics, are wrong. They arrive at their positions by mindlessly copying some group or other.
After all, it is necessary at least to some limited extent at first, especially in politics, to show some degree of popularity of the selected ideas. Far too often lately, far too many people instead of developing winning ideas defer to joining or "associating with" winning groups. That tends to eliminate the necessary critical analysis. People argue that they are correct because most people agree with them. Sometimes they argue that they are correct because they have the most weapons. Neither political party is carefully considering the human condition or using more civilized means of persuasion. Science is no longer science if for example people simply believe in global warming because "most scientists" believe in it rather than understanding any evidence themselves. It's just a mad dash to power all around. It's just an attempt to associate vague notions of "good" with one's own party and vague notions of "evil" with the other parties. It can be obvious to intelligent outsiders that only party matters, and there is no more to it than that.
What is desperately needed is the ability to persuade in a more civilzed manner. Because neither party has done the critical analysis necessary to arrive at its positions, it isn't able to present any analysis in an effort to persuade others. In order to convince someone else of something it is necessary to understand it thoroughly one's self. None of them do, it's just a shouting match where the loudest guy "wins." Turn on your television. Thus the lock in failure mode.
Political questions tend to attract less intelligent people because government doesn't need to persuade anybody of anything. It is not necessary for you to agree that you need a driver's license, you'll need one anyway if you want to drive. There can be, and is often lately, much skipping over the reasons for laws. Government has a unique capacity to force its way. Because this side has the most followers or because this side has the most guns are the only reasons necessary.
Another factor contributing to the loss of the art of persuasion is the loss of the art of religion. Religion necessarily requires more skills of persuasion. The threat of hell or other forms of punishment is not something that can be delivered in the moment as governemt force can be. It requires better understanding of the reasons stealing, for example, is wrong and what is and is not stealing. It requires being able to hold the attention of opponents long enough for the logic to take hold. The promise of rewards is also not something that can be delivered in the moment. Religion, which usually works with rewards and punishments of a very remote god, must be more reasonable and equiped with data in order to be successful in the moment.
It isn't news that much of the reason the art of religion has been lost is Darwin. With only the primitive technology of Darwin's time it was easy for some people, even some moderately intelligent, to imagine how "animalcules" might arise spontaneously, although of course the official position, including of Darwin, remained that spontaneous generation could not yet be explained.
The more science advanced, the more the minute details of biology were observed, the more it became clear that science would never explain how life could possibly arise without an agency obviously not found in nature. The pronouncement arrived too late. By the time it did arrive people had already shut down their critical analysis. They had already depended entirely on accepting without criticism what some group or other believed, itself without critical analysis.
What is developing even now is a rift between the intelligent people who understand how and why things work better certain ways and the misguided who copy ideas from groups they believe will prevail through force.
The Republican Party under Donald Trump still consists of the misguided who accept things without question and expect you to do the same. They intend to use the force in the hands of their party to make things "better" rather than solve the real problem, which is the loss of the arts of religion and persuasion. They could overturn Kitzmiller v. Dover but do not even try because they believe that would interfere with their exercise of force. Another reason they don't even try is that they don't understand the chemistry. Another reason they don't try is that they don't know it's an issue because they haven't seen it on TV lately.
Of course not all Republicans agree. Before Donald Trump ran for affice they had already become aware that governmet was not the solution, it was the problem. Part of the reason Trump won the nomination is that so few expected him to be anything but a wrecking ball in Washington. Their expectations might just prove spot on. They understand that trying to make the country "better" without telling the truth first is doomed to failure.
The misguided remain a problem because following some crowd is the one and only means they have of knowing anything. They could not possibly formulate any arguments, and are afraid to try. They are afraid that if they do not show overwhelming force of mass opinion on their side there will be no other way. It is essential to them that things get better without giving any religion or more subtle art the credit it deserves.
The misguided party in power will be certain things are improving, the
misguided party out of power will be just as certain things are not
improving. That's the way it's been for several changes of the
party in power. Meanwhile the real problem of overdependence of
government force remains, and the national debt spirals out of control,
whichever party is in power.