>People have to agree on certain basic values to workable operate the kind of sweeping federal government we have. Sorry for the late reply. Absolutely. Thin

>People have to agree on certain basic values to workable operate the kind of sweeping federal government we have. Sorry for the late reply. Absolutely. Things like the rule of law (which is mostly the case in the US, with certain really frustrating exceptions -- we should all be treated equally under that law), free and fair elections (there are significant issues there -- especially with gerrymandering and the politicization of the officials who run elections -- e.g., state Secretaries of State) which, we mostly have. I'd add well-regulated capitalism/market economy, which is something of an issue (the sewer of filthy lucre in our political system is the primary culprit in causing problems) here. Freedom (although not unlimited, but pretty expansive) of expression and thought are also important. Most everything else should be left to individuals and communities. While the US system certainly has some significant issues, that's not because (IMNSHO) we (the collective 'we', in the vast majority) agree on the above. The enormous amounts of money in our political system is the biggest issue, with gerrymandering and the (often codified into law in the several states) hegemony of the two-party system not far behind. So no. Americans as a population are mostly in agreement about important things, making compromise possible. But the hegemony of the two-party system creates perverse incentives to demonize the other party and eschew cooperation for fear of alienating the constituencies the parties have riled up by "othering" their fellow Americans. Publicly funded, non-partisan elections, along with regular geometric shapes for congressional districts would go a long way to fix those problems.