Not so. A strong 'other' is necessary if there is to be balance in a society as contentious as ours. It hasn't always been this polarized. In my opinion the most dangerous scenario likely to develop is for Democrats to win a resounding majority in both houses and to win the White House as well. What the nation needs, in my opinion, is a strong move to the center founded on the principle that our system works best when there are checks and balances in place. Those checks necessitate a spirit of cooperation if one is to get anything done. They (checks) force the party in power to listen to and talk with the other side. When a political party takes the attitude that the Bush administration has; a take no prisoners policy of winner take all, we have what we have.

I didn't consider, much less lambaste, your definition of patriotism; nor did I offer one of my own. My post is pointing out how a strong critic, (in the form of the opposition) can be a great asset to the nation and the party in power. Only idiots buy the jingoistic definition of 'patriotism' that you are railing against. The most vocal critics of the government when Democrats are in power will be the very same conservatives crying that it's unpatriotic to criticize the government. My post is about how unfettered power, regardless of who holds it, is dangerous and corrupting. The Bush administration is offered as evidence. I don't suppose that Democrats are, as human beings, any less corruptible.