Equal Rights

   The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that a web designer can refuse to supply services to a gay couple who wanted to celebrate their marriage.
   Curiously, no one had asked the designer to do so. Presumably, other married gay couples have already gone elsewhere. That means, the issue was moot. So why did the court take up the issue in the first place?
   The court apparently based its ruling on the Constitutional First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of speech and of the press, and not on the issue of freedom of religion.
   Commentators have talked all day about the problems this ruling will cause, alleging that gay couples lose their right to celebrate their marriage through internet publication, and the ruling clashes with the American tradition of press freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
   Defenders insist that the ruling is about freedom of speech, not about religion.
   But if businesses cannot refuse service to people based on their race, why is this different? Why is it permissible to refuse service based on gender preference?
   Following the reasoning in the current ruling, it will be legal to deny a hotel room to a gay couple. But it's already illegal to deny a hotel room to a Black couple.
   If a web designer can refuse to set up a page for a gay couple because it's against her spiritual beliefs, could she also refuse to do so for a Black couple?
   Take the reasoning further, and we get the issue of whether a newspaper can refuse to accept an ad from an anti-government firm. Should a printer be required to do work for a propagandist? Can a newspaper be required to run a 500-word story on Page One, rather than two paragraphs on Page 17?
   All these issues relate to the First Amendment of the Constitution. Freedom of speech and of the press, as well as freedom of religion, specify that government cannot force a publisher or a preacher to conform to any specific view.
   All things considered, both sides are right in their thinking of how to handle wedding publicity.
   But the larger question remains, can a business refuse to serve a person or a couple, and for what reason?

Race Abate

   The U.S. Supreme Court ruled out extra points for students of a given race when applying for college. But the court stressed that an applicant must be otherwise fully qualified for admission.
   In effect, this bans extra credit based simply on color.
   The practice may have been useful to end a perceived racial prejudice in the nation's top schools, and the issue became whether that procedure is still needed.
   In effect, the Supreme Court said no.
   Meanwhile, a color imbalance remains in many of the nation's local school districts, both primary and secondary. This reflects the populations of cities and towns throughout America.
   Some would say the solution would be to force integration of cities and towns. Already, busing of kindergarten and elementary school students has been done for several decades as a way to integrate local schools.
But many families left towns and cities, or transferred their students to private schools, using the excuse that they wanted a better education for their children.
   Do they get it? Sometimes. But local students are left behind to attend the traditional local schools, which again reflect the population of their districts.
   One solution would be to enlarge the school districts and bus the students even farther from home so they would attend integrated schools. But how large can a district be, for kindergarten students to ride their buses several miles every day, just so the municipality can abide by some legal requirement that schools have a mixed population of students?
   All of which raises another question:
   "Can't we all get along?" -- Rodney King

Bidenomics vs Reaganomics

   In an earlier presidency, "trickle down economics" was the term used by Ronald Reagan to describe his plan for national wealth.
   Cut taxes for the rich, and eventually, over time, after a while (we don't know how long), the benefits will trickle down to lower income groups and everyone will benefit in the long run.
   How long that might be is anyone's guess. As economist Maynard Keynes put it, "In the long run, we are all dead."
   But if the wealthy put their savings into bank accounts, do the poor benefit? The Reaganomic theory was yes, they would. Eventually.
   Not directly, but over time, and in the long run.
   Meanwhile, the rich would benefit from interest rates paid on their funds, banks would benefit by making more loans, borrowers would benefit from available funds at reasonable interest rates, and the poor and the economic middle income folk would benefit from lower food prices.
   Eventually.
   Perhaps.
   Over time.
   If they have jobs and paychecks.
   And if food prices remain steady and don't rise to absorb the available money.
   
   On the other hand, Bidenomics says government should cut taxes now for middle and lower income groups so they will benefit immediately, rather than having to wait for benefits to trickle down to their level.
   Also, the plan says to cut taxes now for employers, so they will hire more workers so they will be able to pay their rent and buy food.
   So the question becomes, who will benefit in the short term -- call it the next few weeks -- compared to those who will benefit in the long term -- call that next year's tax return.
   You decide who gets your vote.

"Woke" is a Shibboleth

   The term "woke" as used by Republican commentators and politicians is a shibboleth. It has no meaning, and is used only to test the loyalty of listeners.
   The term shibboleth originated in ancient Israel, and was used to test the loyalty of its speaker. Those of friendly tribes were able to make the sh- sound, while enemy speakers could not. When they tried to make the test word, it came out "sibboleth," instead. Those who failed the test were killed.
   Otherwise, the term had no value.
   Today, the term "woke" in the GOP vocabulary has no meaning. Its only value is to identify those who are not loyal to Republican politics.
   Forgotten -- or not known by these orators -- is the reality that the new definition of the term "woke" originated in Harlem in the 1930s, and was used to identify those who sought jobs in other parts of Manhattan but in doing so "woke" to the reality of bias in the job market.
   It's time GOP politicians "woke" to a similar reality and used a word with real meaning.

True Believers

   Belief without thought endangers freedom.
   That has been the opening motto of these essays for several years. But when we apply that guideline to current events in America and the devoted followers of Donald Trump, the motto becomes a warning.
   His followers believe everything he says, regardless of any repeated contradictions and continuing exposure of his falsehoods in the mainstream media. That's easy enough to explain, since many of his devoted followers ignore any outlets that carry information contradicting what their hero proclaims.
   (News media today reported that former British Prime Minister Boris Johnson "deliberately misled" Parliament about parties he held at 10 Downing Street during the COVID crisis. Or, in plain language, he lied.)
   In America, devoted followers of Donald Trump believe him and only him, without listening to anything said by neutral news media, much less anything said by his opponents. And as to the collection of contradictory explanations of his activities about documents found at his private home after he left office, it's one thing to claim he inadvertently misspoke, and quite another to cite evidence that he lied.
   Meanwhile, as lawsuits against him grow in number, so do his efforts to raise funds from his loyal supporters to fight the allegations and court challenges.
   This raises a question from our resident cynic: Where does that money go? Into the legal campaign or into his pocket? Already, there is a documented history of him using campaign donations for personal expenses, and not accurately documenting income and expenses.
   So the question comes down to this: Do you trust a proven liar or independent news media that base its reputation of reporting provable facts?

First Step

   Few people showed up to protest or support the arraignment of Donald Trump in Miami this week.
   Police were ready to deal with a massive protest rally, as happened at other Trump events. But because of numerous arrests and convictions after these other events, fewer supporters were willing to risk jail and heavy fines for their disturbing behavior.
   Result: A peaceful rally.
   The court appearance itself was quiet, presided over by a magistrate and not the regional judge who had been appointed by Trump and who is expected to preside over his trial, if and when it comes.
   There's nothing to be read into that, since the bail hearing was a routine first step in the legal process. The significance remained that it was the first step in a federal criminal procedure against a man who just happened to be a former president of the nation.
   News outlets, however, devoted a large amount of time and space to the story.
   In turn, this publicity helps Trump raise money for his defense fund, and provides multiple opportunities for him tell his side of the story.
   The downside of that, however, is that he regularly says things that are false. On top of that, he has already been fined for saying falsehoods, and despite the fines, he repeats them, so the target gets the court to repeat and increase the fines against him.
   Also, news recordings of what he says become evidence for new charges as well further admission of his continuing illegal behavior.
   When will he ever learn? Perhaps after all the flowers have gone. But that will be a long time in passing.

"Not Guilty"

    "Not guilty."
   That was the attorney's answer in Miami when Donald Trump was officially asked in court about his behavior. Now it's up to the federal lawyers who brought the 37 charges against the former president to prove their accusations.
   Whether the case proceeds in a "timely and expeditious" fashion, as lawyers would phrase it, is another issue.
   Define "timely and expeditious."
   That's yet another thing lawyers can and likely will argue about.
   Many legal commentators have said the evidence strongly supports the charges filed against the former president, but many of his supporters insist the evidence is fake and was planted by his political opposition, while these same opponents are themselves guilty of similar misbehaviors, and therefore "it ain't fair" to pick on one alleged perpetrator and not the others.
   This claim ignores the reality of similar probes against the opponents. One difference is that charges have not been filed against the opponents.
   Yet.
   Will they?
   That depends on when, whether and if prosecutors gather enough evidence to support their allegations.
   In turn, that raises the issue of trust in the American legal system. Or are political leaders immune from prosecution because they are above the law?
   If so, does that apply to all political leaders or just the ones you like?
   Is a puzzlement.
   Meanwhile, the hope for trust in the American legal system is on the line.

Gathering Storm

   Supporters of  Donald Trump have gathered in Florida as he prepares to answer a summons to appear before a federal judge. Whether the gathering will stay peaceful or erupt in violence -- for whatever excuse -- is an open question.
   The real problem is whether that issue should even be a question. Underlying that supposition is whether political leaders lie.
   What a concept.
   Politicians fib.
   Who knew?
   We all know this, but the real issue is that one side believes that only the other side lies.
   Maybe they both do.
   Some are more proficient at it than others.
   It's hard to ignore a prominent political leader who is a poor liar, especially when his followers are so devoted that they will believe everything he says, no matter how foolish or blatantly false.
   Presiding judges in major court units do not typically countenance liars who appear before them. It's one thing to lie to news media and political supporters, but it's not okay to lie to a judge in court.
   Unless you believe you can because the judge owes his or her job to you and therefore will rule in your favor no matter what.
   Believe it or not is a choice.
   That, some say, is an issue for a court proceeding in Florida as to whether and how Donald Trump must face a series of criminal accusations.
   The judge in this case was appointed by Trump himself, so another part of the issue is whether she will go forward and hear the charges against him or excuse herself from the case so it will be heard by another judge who would be viewed as neutral.
    But judges at this level are appointed by a president, so the question stands: Will any federal judge, of the same political party or a different one, rule objectively?
   Another neutrality issue.
   Can judges be neutral?
   Can they? Yes.
   Are they? Usually.
   Therein lies the problem, said our resident cynic. Sometimes they are not. But that's when the appeals process kicks in.
   The core issue in this case is whether Donald Trump expects "his judge" to rule in his favor, no matter the evidence.
   Federal prosecutors are most likely hoping this judge will follow the law and the evidence, and not bend to Trump's wishes.
   That may be part of the reason the feds transferred the case from a Democrat-leaning region to Miami, home of many Republicans and Trump supporters.
   They hope court officials and jurors will follow the facts and not the ex-president's wishes.

Primary Battle

   Violence is coming to America.
   Again.
   This is not just talk. Already, there are hints -- sometimes clear statements -- that supporters of a political leader are planning to take over the government no matter what a vote calculation says.
   That's because they believe the vote count will be accurate only if they win. To them, a purported loss is clear evidence that the other side cheated.
   The premise that they themselves may have manipulated the vote count is vehemently denied.
   Some question whether essays in this blog are not written for high income readers with college degrees, but for lower income workers with less education, and that explains the regular use of short words rather than polysyllabic terminology.
   Answer: The essays are written for both. Short words mean the same, and are easier to read and understand. That is the secret of good writing: to be understood.
   Or as some folks say, "He must be intelligent. I didn't understand a word he said." Others suggest he was just Blowing Smoke. The challenge is to prove your intelligence by being clearly understood.
   Speaking of speakers Blowing Smoke, the political season in America is under way early, and the danger this year is whether political rhetoric will cross the line from aggressive talk to a level that encourages violence.
   Candidates will likely deny that's their plan, but whether their followers accept that explanation or they call it a CYA reply is for the general public to decide.
   Meanwhile, the hints of approaching violence continue to drop. Whether they explode when they hit remains a question.
   The real issue is whether such hints should be part of political speech.

Childish Politicians

"He did it too!"
"She did it first!"

   That's what Trumpians are saying to defend their hero's taking of government documents after leaving office.
   A big difference is that when government material was found, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton immediately returned them, saying they were taken to their homes by mistake, and they didn't know they had been taken.
   Whether you believe them is another issue, but the documents were immediately returned. Contrast that with Donald Trump's insistence that he did not have any such documents, even as he told his staff to move them so searchers wouldn't find them. When that excuse didn't work, he claimed he had mentally changed the documents'  security clearance, so it didn't matter where they were or who had them.
   Now that a federal grand jury has indicted the ex-president on criminal charges, his defenders are increasing their attack on his Democratic opponents, and attempting to ignore their hero's alleged crimes.
   News media have also noted that Richard Nixon was referred to as an "unindicted co-conspirator" who was later pardoned by his presidential successor, fellow Republican Gerald Ford.
   Donald Trump does not have that advantage. Besides, Nixon's pardon was only for any federal offenses that he may have committed, while Trump also faces several state level offenses, so a presidential pardon would have no effect on them.

Spectacular Speculation

"If ifs and ans were pots and pans,

 we'd have no use for tinkers." -- Pug Mahoney

   What if Donald Trump wins the GOP nomination for president and is convicted of a federal crime during the election season?
   As our resident scholar understands the Constitution, it won't matter, at least temporarily. It would only become an issue if he should win election. Then the question would be whether a convicted criminal could serve as President of the United States.
   The Constitution says no, he cannot. Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment is clear: "No person shall ... hold any office, under the United States, or under any State, ... who shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion" against them, or who has given aid or comfort to those who have.
   His support of the Jan. 6 rebels is a clear violation of that part of the Constitution. In addition, there is plentiful evidence that he himself has committed various crimes while in office, and in stashing security documents and refusing to give them back after leaving office.
   There are currently four legal actions against him on both the state and the federal level. The most recent development has been a criminal indictment in Florida. Eventually, this case will go to trial, most likely at the same time as the election season next year.
   The current verbal noise made by ultra-right Trump backers blames Democrats for any and all legal procedures filed against him, insisting that all complaints are entirely, completely and in every detail solely political and have no legal value at all, under any circumstances.
   That's what they say. But what if there is some truth to the allegations?
   We won't know until the trial begins -- unless he cops a plea and ducks out, or finds a way to delay it until after the election.
   But that is clearly the problem. Can a convicted criminal serve as a government official, on any level?

Out Foxing the Law

   Within hours of the earlier essay on presumption of innocence, Donald Trump posted information that he had been indicted on seven counts, on allegations of illegally keeping top secret documents, conspiracy, and other issues.
   Soon, his supporting TV network was blaming the special counsel for indicting the former president.
   Headline on the Fox network: "Biden DA Indicts Political Adversary."
   Correction: Prosecutors do not and cannot indict anyone. That's done by a grand jury of a dozen or more members whose duty is to hear the evidence and then vote on whether there is enough evidence to continue the case.
   They did, and now Trump has joined history as the only U.S. president indicted for a criminal offense, specifically by allegedly hiding evidence of illegal behavior.
   This is a major news story. However, the Fox network today focused their coverage on legal issues being faced by Hunter Biden, son of the current president.
   Can you say "priorities"?
   The news focus now will be on how the federal judge in Florida, who was appointed by Donald Trump, handles the allegations.

Presumptive

   Our legal system presumes a person  innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
   Sometimes, that's quite a presumption.
   But for a basic assumption to be fair, it is essential to assume some things be true until proven otherwise.
   Currently, several legal systems in the United States of America face that principle as prosecutors gather evidence about the doings of a former national president.
   Another assumption: A high ranking government official is no different, legally, than any other citizen and is not immune from prosecution when and if that person breaks a law -- civil or criminal, federal or state.
   Some people, however, believe their wealth and status make them immune from prosecution.
   They are wrong.
   But their wealth does enable them to hire others to argue for him, if only to delay the process.
   Argue, argue, argue.
   Talk, talk, talk.
   Debate, debate, debate.
   Delay, delay, delay.
   Stall, stall, stall.
   And sometimes, that strategy encourages them to lie, lie, lie.
   In a court of law, however, that last strategy is disallowed, even as each contestant hires skilled debaters to argue for them, and a presiding official judges which side has the better argument.
   That doesn't always mean the winning side is right. Sometimes, it only means they were more skillful at arguing.
   One way to get around that problem is to have a jury of otherwise ordinary citizens decide who has the better argument for guilt or innocence.
   Again, that doesn't always mean the prosecution is right; only that they are more skilled at presenting a better argument.
   There is also the issue of bias, racial or otherwise. That, however, is a separate argument. Bias -- racial or otherwise -- should not exist.
   Even so, it does. But that, however, is yet another social issue.
   Currently, American courts are hearing accusations that a former president broke several laws on several occasions in several states on several levels.
   Presume innocent until proven guilty.
   He is not, however, exempt from prosecution and cannot change any law on his own say-so, just as he cannot declassify any top-secret documents simply by thinking about it.
   And as much as he might like to have as much power as a king might have over national affairs, as people in New Jersey often say, "Ain't gonna happen."
   It is now up to the court system to abide by the founding principles of the nation and decide his guilt or innocence.
   As prosecutors are fond of saying, no one is above the law. And as much as this former president might like to be, he ain't.

Anger in America

   Political disagreement is common, but when it fosters violence, it loses value. This has been true for many centuries, because many people insist that what works for them is also the best way of life for everyone else, even those of different spiritual beliefs who had not heard of the new way.
   The preaching was that all non-believers would face eternal damnation, even those whose lifetimes were spent centuries before the coming of a redeemer.
   Similar  rationales are common in the political world, and when would-be leaders blend politics with religion, the consequence often is violence.
   It is long past time that Americans follow the principles spelled out in the founding documents, especially the phrase stipulating that we are all created equal.
   Failure to follow this principle causes the violence that has plagued America since its early days.
   The question for today is whether this tradition of violence against those who disagree will so damage society as to cause it to collapse.
   The easy answer is Yes, perhaps it will.
   The hard answer is to seek a way to stop it.
   Not the disagreement, but the violence.
   Disagreement can be good.
   Violence is not.

Legal Beagles

   Lawyers keep sniffing out examples of violations that jeopardize the reputation of Donald Trump.
   Not that his reputation was super great to begin with, and there are many supporters who insist all the fuss is "a witch hunt."
   But what if there really are witches, also known as practitioners of Wicca, and Trump is blaming them for his problems. In doing so, is he trampling on the reputations of good witches, those who follow the traditional values of ancient Wicca?
   For those who don't know the difference, Wicca is the spiritual practice of many in ancient Europe before the days when practitioners of a newer tradition insisted witchcraft was evil, and only those who did things the new way were good.
   Our resident Druid is keeping his fingers crossed for his Wiccan friends.
 

Fake Belief

"News will not replace us." -- False Chanters

   These are the times that try men's souls, when lies carry more power than truth.
   But that is temporary. Truth will outlive any lie. The challenge is to wait, even as the biggest lie loses its strength and dies while truth lives on.
   Meanwhile, truth seekers must wait, even as they fight off the lies.
   Always remember that the words and music to "America the Beautiful" were written by a Jewish immigrant named Irving Berlin.
 

Bible Ban

   In the wake of protests over books in school libraries that have questionable texts, such as stories about sex and violence, some counter-protestors say that also includes the Bible.

   Therefore, these protestors insist, the Bible should also be banned from school libraries. The proposed ban would not apply to high schools, but only to intermediate and elementary schools. One proposed ban has been made in Utah, but it's not clear whether the proposal also applies to the Book of Mormon.

   All of this raises the question of how many students actually read  the Bible, either in school or on their own. If they read it in a classroom setting, why does it not raise the question of church-state separation?

   And if the Bible is to be banned -- for whatever reason -- what about the Book of Mormon, or the Koran? Or any other spiritual writing? Also, which version of the Bible? The King James version, long praised for its literary excellence as well as its religious significance? Or the Douay version, prepared by the Roman Catholic church? Or any of the many other versions, in the English language or in any other language?

   In my early years of teaching introduction to literature for college people, a student protested assigning a portion of the King James version of the Bible.

   My response was to note its value as literature, not its spiritual or religious significance. Also listed as required reading for the course were writings from early Greece and Rome and portions of the Koran, as well as writings from the Norse Viking era and Celtic stories about the spirit world, plus Native American stories about the Creation.

   None were stressed for their spiritual views. Only for their historical and literary value.

   However, there are still some folks who insist their tradition is the only correct version of creation and spirituality, and all others are evil, regardless of any historical or literary value.

   America is a nation of many cultures, but to insist only one has value and therefore must dominate while others are banned, can only lead to violence.

   By the way, don't forget the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. It still applies.

Bible Babble

   "My spiritual preferences are my own. I am not obliged to conform to others' beliefs, nor do I expect others to conform to mine." -- Pug Mahoney

   A problem throughout history is the conflict generated when one group insists that their spiritual beliefs be held by everyone, no matter their ethnic, cultural or historic background.
   Lost in the conflict is the idea that differing societies perceive of the Otherworld in differing ways.
  Just as some languages give a different name to a Boss Deity (Lord God), they also offer respect to that Deity in different ways. That does not mean that the Ultimate Power is actually different; only that human reality perceives that Power differently.
   Various cultures honor a single Deity as being in charge of other supernatural entities, and do so by giving that Boss God various names and genders.
   Conflict arises when people of one culture insist that their way is the only right way, and therefore all other ways are wrong, and therefore evil.
   Some cultures further insist not only that there is just one Boss Deity, but also that He is the only Deity. To them, the term Lord God is redundant.
   It becomes a challenge when they are asked to explain references to other supernatural beings such as angels.
   And, if there be only one, how does one explain the reference to "other gods" in the first of the Ten Commandments?
   "I am the Lord thy God. Thou shalt not put other gods before Me." (Sometimes that sentence appears in translation as "foreign gods," or as "different gods.")
   The problem is sidestepped when the phrasing is read as spoken by the one deity in charge of all other deities, and the readers are ordered not to honor other deities as being in control.
   The concept of a single deity being in charge also explains the banishment of the angel Lucifer to the Lower World because he dared to challenge the Boss God.
   The name Lucifer, by the way, can be translated as "bearer of light," which further explains his challenge and banishment.
   Consider also the term archangel, meaning one who is in charge. The difference, according to some theologians, is that Michael did not challenge the Boss.
   FYI, the word "boss" is borrowed from the Dutch language, and refers to a person in control, while the term "lord" is an Anglo-Saxon term with the same meaning, and "master" derives from the Germanic "meister," also meaning "man in charge." Similarly, the term "mistress," in its primary meaning, mean "woman in charge."
   It is likely that in colonial America, citizens with their strong sense of independence disliked using the term "master," so they changed the pronunciation to "mister," or they used the alternate term "boss."
  In short, many human societies honor an Otherworld and the beings that inhabit that world, each society using differing terms.
   A comparison of belief systems shows many similarities, even as the names differ. Some use the term "gods," with one deity superior to all the others, who are then referred to with differing labels, such as angels or saints.
   Other societies use different names. One example is the name Zeus, the one deity in charge in the ancient Greek conception of the Otherworld.
   Note the similarity to the Latin "Deus," the Spanish "Dios," and the French "Dieux."
   In closing, note that the English term "god" is borrowed from the Germanic or Anglo-Saxon word "gott."
   The spelling and pronunciation may change, but the concept is the same.

   Final note: The English word "bible" is borrowed from Latin, and simply means "book," as in "bibliography," a list of books, or "bibliophile," a love of books.
  

Moving On

   Now that politicians have proudly announced they have compromised on a way to keep government operating -- as if there was a choice, since canceling government is neither feasible nor realistic -- it's time to move on.
   But first let's consider the root of the disagreement over how government should function.
   There are two extremes: At one end is the idea that government governs best when it governs least. That's only a short step away from no government at all, and there are some who hold that belief.
   Another word for that is anarchy -- government by none. The next step is monarchy -- government by one. After that comes plutocracy -- government by a few.
   And no, that does not refer to the cartoon dog character, nor the planet, nor the ancient supernatural figure.
   The extreme in that list is anarchy, no government at all. That, however, is not practical. So the best of the available options is government by a few.
   But which few?
  There's the rub, and that social rubbing causes conflicts over which should be chosen to lead.
   But chosen by whom?
   More conflict.
   If the chosen few can run government, those who do the choosing will benefit, while the unchosen many will not.
   That has been the core of the American problem since the early years of the nation's independence. Only the chosen few could vote, and their support went to those who vowed to uphold the chosen system.
   Then came change.
   In the yearly years of the republic, only white male property owners could vote. Consequently, they voted for others of that ilk, who promised no change.
   Then came protests by workers, who united to force change by management to bring fair treatment. That, of course, led to conflict over what constituted fair treatment.
   Often, the reply was, "My way is fair, because I say it's fair. Besides, I pay your wages, so therefore what I say is more important."
   Circular reasoning. Compromise was not in their vocabulary.
   Sadly, much of that opinionating remains, as does the basic problem. How to keep government operating for the benefit of the many without punishment or excess cost to the few.
   That, of course, requires acknowledging that the purpose of government is to work for the benefit of the many, not just the few supporters of a partisan political party.
   Will it change?
   That will depend on whether each side learns to compromise.