One of the significant philosophical differences between those "on the left" and those "on the right" in the United States today is their approach to conflict resolution. The 'left' seems to hold to the theory that all conflict can be resolved by negotiation and that war should not exist as an option in any circumstance.

To consider this phenomenon logically I decided to try to try to define "war" and "negotiation" in order to try to see if this is a realistic concept.

War is an activity involving two or more parties at least one of which seeks to gain ascendancy over or domination of (or both) over the other(s) without their approval. While the typical perception of 'war' includes force, bloodshed, etc., these characteristics need not, in my opinion, be present for a state of war to exist. A conflict of objectives actively being pursued between or among parties is the only prerequisite for a state of war to be existent.

Negotiation is an activity involving two or more parties with differing objectives by which each seeks to gain agreement between or among the participants such that all parties' objectives have been attained to the satisfaction of all involved.

The fundamental difference between the two activities involves one simple concept - tolerance. Unless mutual tolerance exists successful negotiation is not possible.

In my opinion, we are living in a time where tolerance is declining. It is declining in this country because tolerance requires mutual respect which, in turn, depends on certain underlying, immutable concepts being agreed to without dispute. I believe we are in a period where concepts long thought immutable are under sustained attack, e.g.., terrorists no longer value their own lives, concepts of objective good and/or evil are no longer mutually agreed to. The result is the coarsening and gradual decline of the more genteel aspects of our civilization and culture.

We have entered a period where tolerance has to a great extent become an invitation to being assaulted. It is happening in the United States where the demand for unrestricted tolerance is leading to a decline in the concept of a self governing society and it is happening around the globe where a manifestation of tolerance can be viewed as a sign of weakness, a symptom of lack of commitment. It is happening where hate is taught and preached repeatedly by those who have transmogrified into excuses for intolerance the beliefs they profess to hold.

To those who hold the position that war is unacceptable under any circumstances I would postulate that they must promote their philosophy by setting the standard for tolerance and, of course, respect. I submit that the Anointed have not grasped this concept and, in fact, that they promote intolerance by their nature. I cite as examples the campaign of hatred against George W. Bush waged during the past few years, the media bias that utilizes aggressive adjectives and descriptions in connection with conservatives, the propensity of the Anointed for personal rather that ideological attack during conflicts.

I submit, therefore, that  war and not negotiation (in spite of the proliferation of talking sessions of all kinds) has gained the upper hand as the modus operandii for the evolution of our civilization in the near future.