Man, I work with some wackos...

... and they are from both sides of the aisle, too.

One, a dice dealer from Puerto Rico of about 30 years, has seen one too many videos about the conspiracy theories behind the tragedies of 9/11. He challenged me to watch "9/11: In Plane Site" and to refute the claims made in that video. Too easy, as this really did look like a "documentary" that was made using only video clips that had been cut-and-pasted from TV footage, no supportive interviews or data, and the author-producer seemed to be filming in his grandmother's basement (after having cleaned up the empty pizza boxes and put on something other than his GU sweatpants).

The other is a self-proclaimed conservative Christian, also a dice dealer but from Atlantic City, of the same age. His assertions run to the tune of Obama and his Congressional affiliates having close and intimate ties to global socialist organizations and that his sole purpose in becoming President was to bring about the end of the "great experiment" that was the United States of America. His is the more painful argument to hear, as I can agree with much of what he holds near and dear to his political heart... but his reasoning is so far right as to make it impossible to challenge his views.

My question is: Is there a marked and measurable difference between the theories that put a conspiracy behind the attacks on 9/11 into the hearts and minds of those running the Federal government, and the theories that there is a conspiracy behind the existing Federal government to undue all that has been done since the Constitution has been penned?

I say no.

Our system of government has always been one of oppositional systems. Debate and compromise have dominated our government since long before it ever was codified into a recognizable system we could study today. Popular opinion has always dictated what the goals of the Federal system are for the terms that our leaders are elected to fill, and as such, the views and goals of government have changed radically over the intervening years.

We've had progressives like Obama, Carter, Johnson in our own lifetimes... but they are the followers of views and opinions shared with the likes of Teddy Roosevelt, Wilson, and FDR. We've had conservatives like Reagan, but he shared many of his views with the likes of Truman, Kennedy, Nixon and Ford... none of whom were (or are now) called "conservative" while they were in office.

People like my dice dealing friend from AC shout at the changes that Obama has brought to the American political landscape, and that they reflect the sort of fundamental change that Wilson or FDR wanted to see. How can I express that there isn't a President in the books that hasn't brought radical and sweeping change to the status quo during their terms? Madison, the "Father of the Constitution", damn near re-wrote the authority and actions available to a Commander-in-Chief while he was President, as did Jefferson, Adams and Washington before him.

Every President ever elected brought to the White House his own particular view of what direction the country should be going in... and that view, as individual and unique as it has always been for every example, is a large part of what got them elected in the first place. Prior to 1860, the country had seen 50 years of failed compromise policy concerning slavery within the Union, and Lincoln's promise to "preserve the Union" rather than continue the compromise is what got him elected.

I still maintain that the failure of our nation isn't due to the "progressives" that want to change it, but instead in the inability of the more traditional, "conservative" movement to show that their's is the more functional course to follow. Four years or more of "bad government" should be more than enough to fix this error... but it does not show us that America herself is failing. Far from, in fact... I think it means that America is functioning quite well after nearly 250 years.