Thom Hartman, a man I rarely agree with on base principles but is masterful at presenting them, makes a good point about a binary vote. The more choices, the less representation. If you have 5 candidates, the situation exists where 20% +1 of the population could win and control policy for 80% who were apposed to them.
A faction group could take over the government.

I can't vote there. My option is missing.

I do believe there is a middle space that works. I think the left doesn't have to abandon their fantasy, but I do think they need to deal with THIS world. The ideals are great to mark on a map and start figuring out how we can get there. The left just wants to pretend we can have it if we just say that's how it is. Stuff doesn't work that way. I used to bag on the Libertarians for the same thing. Some GREAT ideals that are simply impractical in this time.

The right shouldn't stop looking at the ideals, or how do you ever get there? Together, we should be measured and contemplative in pushing toward the ideal. It doesn't do us any good to ignore it, and it doesn't do us any good to throw a tantrum because we can't have it today. What wins? The left playing to their strengths and the right playing to their strengths. The left dreams of a better world. The right plans how to get it done.

Right now, the right thinks the left is stupid for dreaming--they're impractical, and the left thinks the right is stupid for not dreaming--only practical, inhibiting progress. What I think most miss is that we're actually a pretty good team together WHEN OUR INTENTIONS ARE GOOD. Contempt is killing all opportunities to use our strengths for some better future.

We also should realize and accept we MAY NEVER achieve EXACT Utopia. That depends on the evolution of humanity. We've never known a time where there wasn't bad people. We've never known a time where there weren't any violent people. Violent people hold the power for peace. I can pretend I have peace all I want until someone breaks into my home, which is in itself violence. I can't control another person from becoming violent. I can only react to his or her violence with violence or acquiescence. The only thing that keeps bad people from breaking into my home are anonymity--I'm nobody, the number of people around me (statistical probability), and the fear of repercussions (arrest or violent resistance). That's really it. Bad people aren't thinking about good reasons to not be bad, or they would be good. Bad people are not bad when they're not sure they can win. This is a really important idea.

Finally, there are some things we may never solve. Abortion is one of those topics. I think pro-life has more compelling arguments, though I think there are a lot of good and practical points on the pro-choice side as well--legitimate concerns. But, there's no way to talk pro-life into accepting the murder of children, and they believe unborn after 11 or 12 weeks are children. That alone is worth dying for. It's worth the war. Or, it's worth dividing the country into two halves and functioning separately. There's nowhere for pro-life to compromise. Abortion is the killing of children (pro-life). So, we're set up with genocide vs. women's rights, and those two are just not equally weighted. Women LIVE being oppressed (pro-choice) or children DIE. How do we resolve just that part of this issue?

So, I think it's more complicated than preservationists vs. deconstructionists.

Steven Turley examines Putin's claims and Russian repudiation of secular liberalism and endorsement of traditional, nationalist, cultural Christianity.

Will the West follow?