Two Americas? Well - Not Exactly...

America is dangerously divided, claim the nominees of the party which has promoted government as arbiter of spoils, rather than as protector of citizens' assets. It's neither fair nor right for government to allow one group to rise far ahead of others - said the trial lawyer who's misused the law to leverage unearned money on false charges and incorrect research - and while raking off his 40-percent commission, as the law he represents, allows.

We must bring America back as one, claim this pair of pretenders to the throne. Since they talk, not of bringing up the underclass with discipline and guidance and reward, but of taking "the rich" (in fact working men who are rising up) down a peg by appropriating more of their income.

They're wrong on a number of different levels; the first that comes to mind is how the United States is less two nations, than a broad spectrum. That the spectrum is widening, while the living standard is rising even for the lowest, is a good thing. Hard work always paid; in today's world, it pays better. This represents opportunity; what Democrats claim to crave even as they systematically destroy.

And this in an environment where what is "poor" has been moved upward - drastically. In Somalia, the poor don't have sufficient food. In Arabia, they don't have shoes. In America...only 25 percent don't have air conditioning!

But we digress. While the "division" within America has been portrayed inaccurately, sinisterly, another important division has been entirely overlooked. It's a division between the rulers and the ruled.

Between the in-groups, connected and well-heeled, and out-groups reduced to the modern equivilancy of begging.

Between those who helplessly turn to their betters for hope and aid and fair redress, and the capricious decisions of the elite.

It's true, folks. This is the chasm within the modern Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party, in this post-New-Deal era, has moved past the modern-historical period of having been filled with bright, if star-eyed, young idealists who wanted to address social and economic wrongs and find a better way. The party still mouths the platitudes, but its leadership - and its membership - belie the truth.

In fact it was inevitable, given what the party has stood for, lo these past seventy years. The premise, starting with Roosevelt, on through Humphrey and even to McGovern, was that government needed to be empowered to address social "wrongs." This has some implications; it creates a new dynamic.

First, it draws the non-performers. People who somehow see more hope in government redistribution of wealth, than government protection of earned wealth. People who wish to build government big and limitless - in the hope that that power will always be used to take from others and give to people like themselves. And in the hope that those "others" will continue to produce, that they might be taken from.

People whom, at heart, want, not orderly systems of government or equality of opportunity, but equality of outcome.

No one likes to admit inadequacy; but we're all different in our level of competency. People who find their niche, who learn to be productive, will in time be repulsed by a philosophy that advocates driving one back into the morass, anytime he rises above his station. As determined by his "betters" - in government.

And that's the other "constituency" such a party and philosophy draw. Those who aren't content, or who aren't able, to establish themselves in the capitalist heirachy. Who wish to impose their views on others.

Kingmakers, like Terry McAuliffe, who don't know scruples. Operatives, like Maxine Waters or Dennis Kucinich, who don't know better. And John French Kerry, beaming mindlessly into his goose patê, who pretends to be fit for the most powerful office on the planet.

Those who feel they have, or have been given, the answer to specific, or general, problems of society. And who wish, not to persuade others of their views; but who wish to bypass all that folderol - and use the levers of government to FORCE it on unenlightened Philistines.

Such people are always with us. The Radical Republican carpetbaggers who overran the South during Reconstruction were exactly such people. Doubtless the German Hessians who fought during the Revolutionary War had similar hopes, over and above their meager mercenary's pay.

Such people exist and such people are drawn by opportunity. And today, these opportunities exist in the Democratic Party.

This is nothing new - it's an unattractive universal human trait, more common in some than in others. Vladimir Lenin demonstrated it well. Hillary Rodham, untrained in medicine but possessing knowledge of a Better Way to administer it. She knows better - and she wishes, not to sell the concept, that's failed every time it's tried - but to seat herself in a position where she can FORCE others to her plan. And how can I overlook the ultimate power-craving chameleon, the liberal-turned-moderate-turned-radical, Bill Clinton? He would be anything to anyone, any group, who would give him access and control...in this modern age, the Democratic Party.

People who believe in opportunity - even those who mistakenly believe in Federally-protected access to abortion, or who embrace other liberal causes. - have migrated to other parties. People who are neither followers nor helpless, nor exploitative or power-driven - have left the Dems.

So there's little to check the tendency to build on the theme of class-envy and redistribution. Nor is there little to stop the tendency to ignore accepted rules of fair play and integrity. The ends, after all, justify the means; and the ends are acquisition of power. To shuck off restrictions on government and turn it loose in the cause of social justice.

The rank-and-file accept this viewpoint, unspoken though it is, by their silent endorsement of the stream of hyperbole and distortion and untruth. The leadership accepts this - for the surviving leadership, not gleaned out by morals or principles, seeks, power and control. First, foremost, and only.

The few exceptions prove the rule. Zel Miller, Joseph Lieberman (who himself choked down his views four years ago in the Gore effort) and Ed Koch have shown a consistency of viewpoint that contrasts with radicalization of the Democratic message and gives us a counterpoint. But leaders such as these are disappearing from the party.

And that is where we are at in this election. The party which craves power, which will tell any distortion, any lie, any falsehood to acquire it, is divided sharply between the leadership and the membership. Rather than representing its members' views and needs, it's dictating them and shepherding the membership toward its leaders' goals...herding them right over the cliff of collectivism, to destroy the economy but leave them with limitless power. The situation is more reflective of a corrupt union organization than of a political party.

They look at their divided ranks and see a divided America. Can it be any wonder?

And is it their fear?...or is it their aim?

JustPassinThru is a locomotive engineman and former political-science student in the Great Lakes region, where he drives trains, worships cars, curses government - and now will try to write about all three.

=====================================================