This is just an observation, but I've been pondering this for awhile. I used to be rather politically motivated. I was a political science major. I interned for a U.S. Senator before entering the seminary. I wanted to go into politics in some capacity in college.

Then, something happened and I was turned off. I can't put my finger on it, TBH. But, I'm just not even a fraction as interested in politics as I once was. Don't get me wrong...I still have my opinions, and I'll voice them. Sometimes imprudently, which I then bring to confession.

But, I've noticed something. For at least the last 20 years, the political gap in the U.S. has gotten wider. By that, I mean the divide between the two major parties in the U.S. has gotten wider and more vitriolic.

I believe that there is a genuine hatred by the far right of the far left, and vice versa. And so, I've pondered this, asking myself why this is. It could be a wrong perception. But, for the sake of this thread, let's pretend that it's right. Here's my theory:

We Americans are a competitive people. We like to be the first, the biggest, the best. We like that on a national level, but also on an individual level. Many adults (myself included) played sports in high school. There's an innate competitive desire in us.

For all but a select few good enough to compete in college, once high school is over, true athletic competition is gone. Politics can fill that gap. American politics has really become a big football game...again, my theory.

We have team colors (red and blue) and mascots (donkey and elephant), pep rallies (conventions), and gameplans (campaigns). Cheers (MAGA, Vote Blue No Matter Who!). Culminating in our Super Bowl (election night) complete with a running scoreboard and color commentary.

This fills a void in people, so much so that we are willing to go all in for the team, at the expense of who knows what. Politics also fills a religious void for some people, so much so that criticizing a candidate or platform is seen as an attack on God or one's faith.

Ultimately, what this does is cause us to lose sight of the truth. This was why I tweeted out last night, "Is there such a thing as objective truth?" It was sort of preparing for this thread in a way. Of course there is objective truth! There has to be!

And if we were honest, we'd support truth. But, because of our allegiance to our team and our "god," we sacrifice truth. Here are but two examples. Once upon a time, "conservatives," used to be opposed to big government. If Barack Obama had given a $3 trillion govt. bailout...

...Republicans would have been incensed. Talk radio would have been saying "He's crippling our children and grandchildren with debt!" But, to the best of my knowledge, with the exception of @WilkowMajority, no one on the right batted an eye when President Trump did this.

On the flip side, I'm old enough to remember post-9/11 when George W. Bush rammed the Patriot Act through Congress, trampling on a number of civil liberties in the name of "keeping Americans safe." Democrats rightly criticized him for it. I didn't. I was wrong at the time.

With the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, I was guilty of what I'm suggesting many are doing now. I missed the forrest for the trees. Protecting Americans against terrorists is a good thing. But not at the expense of liberty. I'm sure some aspects of the Patriot Act were good,...

...but in hindsight, we can rightly criticize a good portion of it. However, because the guy pushing it had an (R) behind his name, Republicans were in lock-step and Democrats criticized it. Fast forward to 2020...it's largely the American left that is pushing for mask mandates.

They're pushing for more shutdowns. The Democratic mayor of LA today said that he will shut off your utilities if you host a party at your house. It's the left that is pushing for mandatory vaccinations, all in the name of "keeping people safe." And why?

I'll suggest that it's because Donald Trump and Republican mayors like @KimReynoldsIA and @govkristinoem aren't pushing for these things. They have an (R) behind their name, so we have to oppose it.

Here's the point...in 20 years we've switched from the R's pushing anything to "protect the public" and the D's opposing it, to almost the exact opposite...the D's pushing anything to "protect the public" and R's opposing it.

Finally, please don't get into semantics of how much worse the Patriot Act was than "just wearing a mask." This isn't about a mask. It's about a principle and a theory.

Likewise, please don't sit there and tell me that terrorism is "such a more real threat than a virus that is less than 1% fatal." Again, I'm trying to illustrate a theory.

That theory is that policy doesn't really matter anymore. What matters is whether the pusher of said policy has a D or an R behind their name.