In recent years, both the political parties as well as the country in general have become more partisan. People move around until they find a place with like-minded individuals and subsequently elect like-minded politicians. This, in turn, polarizes people, as they end up sitting around talking about stuff and always agreeing with each other. Now, this sounds like a good thing in theory--we all like to think we're right, and hearing opposing opinions can be discomforting. However, with no dissenting opinions on anything, people tend to move closer and closer to each extreme on the political continuum.

And so what happens is these people become more and more conservative or more and more liberal, and end up electing very liberal or very conservative Congressmen. When these Congressmen get to Washington, however, they are not used to differing opinions, and thus retreat into their shells and proclaim that they're right and that anyone who doesn't agree is wrong. And once the picture is framed in terms of "right" and "wrong," we end up with a stalemate which makes it impossible for compromise or progress.

Take the issue of abortion, which has polarized the country perhaps more than anything else in the past 30 years. On the one side you've got the pro-choice band, and on the other is pro-life. By these groups' very names, they make it impossible for compromise. "Pro-life" immediately calls to mind opposing images of death; to be "pro-life" is to be for living, while to not be "pro-life" is to be associated with death. The term "pro-life" was coined to intrinsically lead people to these associations. It's an "either you're with us or against us" mentality that goes to the other extreme as well with the term "pro-choice." Everyone likes freedom, right? A lack of freedom is akin to fascism and totalitarianism, right? You're not a Nazi, are you? These inane questions are the types of things associated with "pro-choice," as, similar to with "pro-life," the opposite of "pro-choice" is anti-choice, which I'm sure everyone and his mother will tell you is bad. Who doesn't like choice? Commie pinko scum, that's who!

With this all or nothing mentality, neither side can gain any ground because compromise is seen as weak. From the pro-life side, how can they agree to compromise at all when they hold fast that every (embryonic) life is sacred? They can't, because allowing for abortions in some circumstances would weaken their resolve and would possibly open the floodgates for wide-spread abortion. This, in turn, would wreak havoc and bring down society as we know it; so compromise is out of the question.

However, things aren't much better from the pro-choice side either. How can they agree to compromise when they think it's a crime against humanity for a woman to not be able to control her reproductive destiny? They can't, because disallowing abortions in some circumstances would weaken their resolve and would possibly open the floodgates for wide-spread prohibition of abortion. This, in turn, would wreak havoc and bring down society as we know it; so compromise is out of the question.

We're left with a stalemate which has at its core the problem of "absoluteness." More clearly, both sides are convinced that theirs is the one, true ideal, and that the other side is dead wrong; there are certain absolutes in life, and both sides think theirs is one of them. Pro-choicers think freedom is an absolute in life; pro-lifers think living is an absolute. Instead of having the issue posed as "I think I'm right, and I think you're wrong," the question now gets posed as "I'm right, you're wrong. End of discussion." In the former, there is room for discussion and compromise; in the latter there is none.

The biggest problem with all this is that people who hold these absolutes as canon are extremely inconsistent in their views. For instance, many pro-lifers are also in favor of the death penalty, which is an odd position to take for someone who claims to think that all human life is sacred. Often, the justification is that an embryo is an innocent and has a right to live, whereas a criminal is guilty of something and deserves to die. Keeping religion out of this, we can see that this is a very inconsistent way of thinking. Even if we were to grant that an embryo is an innocent living being, the justification for captial punishment is still absent. If you think that human life is sacred, you must keep this consistent and apply it to everything, including criminals and war. Instead of killing a prisoner, why not simply hold him in jail for life? This would be an appropriate punishment and allow for consistency on the whole sacredness-of-human-life position.

What this all boils down to is there is very little in life that is an absolute. Cultures vary from one to the next and so what might be "right" in one may very well be "wrong" in another, and vice versa. Everything is relative, and so there is no point in trying to argue that absolutes exist. The sooner people from both sides get their heads out of their asses and realize this, the sooner things will start to go back to normal and become less polarized.