The problem is that in many cases you are dealing with the ideological few who are trying to impose their will on everyone else. They aren't willing to come to the middle (though to be fair to the issues, in many cases there is no middle). And as a result, those who ideologically differ similarly take a hard-line stance.

What we have really lost in the past 60 years or so is temperance and tolerance of differing viewpoints. Those especially on the left are unwilling to allow the "live and let live" mentality which has dominated political discourse in our nation since its Founding (see the First Amendment). Those who aren't willing to adopt the mindset - or at least the laws - favoring lefting ideology are persecuted in the Court system and society in general. And as a result, the right raises its hackles and strikes back.

The scary thing is that I've been reading about our nation's political discourse from 1830 to 1860 and it seems that we are headed the same direction: toward an ideological civil war. As Abraham Lincoln observed (during the famous Lincoln-Douglas debates) with regards to the difference in opinion regarding the extension of slavery into the new territories of the West, the various parties of the nation were not willing to keep the same policies that had allowed both to live if not precisely in harmony at least in tolerance of the other. And eventually the partisan rancor on both sides grew to the point that the Southern States decided to secede and instigate military conflict with their assault on Fort Sumpter (South Carolina). I hope that our nation does not come to this, but unless ideologically people are willing to find common ground, my fear is that they will allow these partisan antagonisms to drive them to open conflict.

I am in agreement, and the fact people show up just to scream at them, and record it on their iPhone, to put on YouTube and Facebook, just adds to their efforts. It makes manipulation so much easier. Also, there should be some checks made, now that paid agents have been identified, so at least they have to pay some ninny from that district to go...

Now that is truth!

blarman, see my point below, I believe one of the things lost in politics is consensus building, where you seek a standard or solution most, if not all, can live with. As the parties have moved to each end of the spectrum, it becomes harder and harder to ever get there. The people going to the townhalls to just scream and yell are just venting frustration and accomplishing nothing.

Good synopsis nickursis .My thoughts as well.
He needs to be more conscious of his Delusion of Grandeur.
Another thought is the Soros organized left will organize to disrupt their opponents. I am thinking of the $6 million or so spent to take down the Arizona Sheriff. when that type of election normally a small fraction of that amount is spent. Right now I have a sense that a big plan is underway for civil disobedience in the future with the minions on standby for the next we gotcha moment.

Well, that is the problem, isn't it? You elect a person with 51% of the vote and the other 49% can suck wind. My statement is that representaive is STILL the representative of all the people in that area, and should, take into account ALL the inputs he/she recieves and act as best suits the overall consensus, if one can be found. It may actually mean being neutral on an issue because of a split vote.Far harder task than what they do today...

So this is his mentality... he has not yet extracted enough salary to get back all his past taxes paid, therefore he is paying his own salary!
For a businessman, he is not very smart.

Excellent point. A representative may represent his geographic district, but will in no way represent the ideology of everyone within that district. At best, he/she will represent the prevailing ideology.

That reminds me of the last socialist president I never voted for.

I thought that representative represented himself quite par for the course.

That's right. Just because he's elected doesn't mean he represents anybody. Oh....wait....

On matters of public policy and legislation a congressman does not represent all of the people in his district, nor is it possible for him to do so. In this respect, his chief obligation is to vote as he promised to vote while he was campaigning.

My congresswoman is a Democrat, and in no way does she represent me. Nor do I expect her to.