What has happened to our "one nation, indivisible"? Politically, the U.S. is looking very much like two separate nations, divided on many issues, such as abortion, gay marriage, tax cuts, the War in Iraq, and the role of religion in national affairs. The 2000 presidential election was extremely close, and 38% of the public still believes that Bush "stole" the election.

Sure, Americans disagree on many issues. They always have. What has changed, though, is that American politicians have, with their inane rhetoric, driven the citizenry into opposite corners. When political leaders take a strong position on an issue, it can quickly become a matter of force, turning mostly harmless disagreements into battles that can turn vicious.

When our government passes legislation that favors one side of an issue, or punishes one side, it simply raises the stakes... makes the issue far more important. Those who believe they've "lost" to the legislation now have much more incentive to take action to reverse the government's position. Their actions then cause those who seem to have "won" to reply with increased actions, just to maintain their victory. When government takes an issue position, there is usually a lot of money involved for the "ins" and serious disadvantage for the "outs".

For many years, both major political parties have played the "vote against" ploy, depicting the candidates of the other party as so dangerous that we should vote against them. In doing so, they use exaggerated and inflammatory rhetoric, which, again, drives listeners into more extreme positions.

Politicians also make extreme promises to large voting blocs, such as seniors, government workers, welfare recipients, and union members. In doing so, they gain contributions and votes, but they also build resentment in those voters who are not part of such organized groups. Young people become more alienated from seniors because they can see that Social Security will likely cause oppressive tax burdens during their peak working years. Political preference for unions causes resentment among those citizens who are non-union. Taxpayers come to resent welfare recipients for similar reasons... and so on.

As government has stuck its nose into more areas, benefits for married couples have accumulated, which aroused gay couples who then felt abused and started demanding special rights for themselves... which caused those who oppose homosexuality to respond emphatically... and back and forth... each side becoming more extreme as times passes.

The War in Iraq has our nation severely divided, because the stakes are incredibly high, and both sides are super-emotional... "patriotism" and "support for our troops" is stacked up against "terrible loss of life" and "increased world hatred"... and everyone is forced to take an extreme position.

The War on Drugs is equally polarizing. An issue of minimal importance until that war was begun by politicians wanting to appear caring yet tough, it has escalated dramatically, again, because government has made the stakes so high with excessive sentencing, corrupt prosecutions, and Gestapo tactics.

On issues government keeps their nose out of, people can live together peacefully, usually ignoring and respecting their differences. We do it all the time. Often we don't even know what our neighbor's position is on an issue... until politicians raise the stake, making it seem important to have a position for or against.

Polarization... a deeply divided nation... each of us feeling pressured to take extreme positions.

Pollster John Zogby supervised the O'Leary Report/Zogby International Values Poll which was conducted last month in conjunction with Southern Methodist University:

"What we discovered is a nation that is really two nations - split down the middle on a number of issues," Zogby said.

Among the findings: 38 percent of Americans believe the 2000 election "was stolen" by Bush and the Republicans; Americans are almost equally divided on the president's Iraq policies; and 56 percent said the president's tax cuts were bad or made no difference in their lives, as opposed to 41 percent who said they were good for them.

On the subject of abortion, the poll showed that 51 percent of all voters nationwide preferred some level of prohibition on abortion while 47 percent favored no restrictions. Zogby said that those results reflected a shift in the electorate against abortion. The poll was based on responses from 1,200 likely voters and had a margin of error of 3 percent.

The poll found substantially different views between states that voted Republican in the 2000 presidential election and states that voted Democratic. Missouri and Illinois were on opposite sides; Missouri supported Bush and Illinois backed Democratic nominee Al Gore.

In Democratic, or "blue" states, 42 percent said they supported civil unions between same-sex partners. But in the Republican "red" states, 25 percent supported the idea of civil unions.

We're gradually being forced by politicians into "choosing sides", because they insist on showing extreme favoritism to one side of each issue. They feel compelled to take strong positions so they have something to lay claim to. The truth is, politicians play a lot of games to avoid responsibility for their positions. They talk out of both sides of their mouths. There is a simple political rule: the rule of deniability. Don't say anything clearly enough, specific enough, so that you can't reverse yourself if necessary. The current example is Howard Dean explaining away his previous support for aggressive action in Bosnia, but still criticizing similar action in Iraq. I'm not picking on Dean, because all politicians do the same thing... they're like sheets in the wind, blowing whichever way seems to be politically advantageous at the time. With their rhetoric and actions... with the indiscriminate use of force, they are severely dividing our nation.

If our elected officials were to abide by the Constitution they each swear to uphold, almost all of these issues would be non-issues, and Americans could go back to living side-by-side in peace instead of dividing up into opposing camps. That is precisely what libertarians want to see happen. We want government limited in size and scope to those levels allowed by our Constitution, which would seriously limit the use of force by government. Force causes conflict... it really is that simple... and government has a monopoly on the use of force. It follows then, doesn't it, that government is the primary cause of conflict in our nation?

When are Americans going to tire of being jerked around by false political rhetoric... when are we going to tire of being pushed into extreme positions by polarizing legislation? When are we going to tell them to just shut up and get out of our lives, and let us live in peace?