Amendment. Most people will erroneously tell you that the war is what ultimately resolved this ideological divide. In reality it was the later adoption of the 13th
amendment which finally satisfied a logical conclusion to the issue.
In modern politics we are witnessing a continual ideological divide on many issues. We have many who will stake their passion strictly on the positions of the ideology they tend to favor regardless of any logic or lack thereof that might be found within that position. What we don’t see in modern political debate is a platform statement that is followed up by also stating the logic behind that platform. After all, what good is it for a person to have an opinion if they can’t even explain and defend the logic behind that opinion?
Running negative ads that display the failures of an opponent doesn’t represent a valid logical reason to vote for someone. It only represents a potential reason to not vote for the opposition. If that’s all a person has to go on when it comes time to vote it typically means that person most likely won’t even bother. Obama’s biggest concern isn’t about which demographics Romney might win. His main concern is which of his own demographics won’t even bother to show up since his incumbent record and a lack of new ideas hasn’t provided them with a reason to vote for him a second time. It’s time for all of our politicians to start expression more than just a negative passion against their opponent. It’s time we started demanding that they explain the logic behind their own platform. That way when we do go to the polls we will have a reason to cast our vote.
One of the unmistakable traits employed in my commentaries is that I always choose logic over emotion when dealing with resolutions to issues. The reason is that logic is an unwavering constant which holds no agenda of its own, whereas emotions can create a continually evolving position which lends itself to manipulation. Passion can deceive a person into coming to the wrong conclusion based on someone else’s agenda. This typically won’t resolve anything, but will quite often only lead to even greater future issues. When two people hold passionately opposing views on a given subject we can be assured that at best only one of them has it right. In many cases neither actually holds the correct answer as long as neither is bound in logic.
If we take the civil war as an example, both sides held a definitively passionate position as to why we were at war. The truth is though that neither side really had it completely correct. To the North the war was predicated on the concept of abolishing slavery, while at the same time the South’s argument was predicated on the states rights provisions of the 10