I think many of the problems we as a society are having, with regards to political discourse, all boil down to the idea of Utopia. In essence, every Party out there seems to think they have the answer and that "If mankind would only think the way I do (or at least the way I want them to) everything would be good; maybe even perfect."
The failing with this type of thinking is that you can't have a working society (of humans at least) that is a monoculture. It doesn't even work well for lower organisms like plants or bacteria as the entire group would be susceptible to the same weaknesses and would therefore all be at risk should it encounter something dangerous in the environment.
This same error in thinking appears again and again throughout history, and yet every new year you still have someone claim that "if only you would all live the way I want you to, we'd have Utopia."
In some ways, I think this kind of egoism is necessary, because once in a very long while you find a new idea that works and makes things better for people. But these new ideas will never work perfectly for every individual situation.
In fact, if they did work, I think we'd end up with a rigid society completely incapable of responding to change. A Utopia racing towards the edge of a cliff. Maybe this is how the myth of Atlantis started.
The Good, not the Perfect
"Live and let live" is not, by itself, enough to make a successful society, or even an individual philosophy. The key to recognizing a workable society (as opposed to one that will inevitably crash and burn) is one that conforms to a few basic principles.
1) The society is responsive to change. This principle can, in many ways, stand in for all others as any civilization that has suffered collapse is one that could not (or would not) change to meet the conditions of its environment.
At its core, a system of government that "works" is one that recognizes the need for change when it occurs and can come up with a reaction to that need that it can act upon. I know this seems tautological, but there are many times where a government knows what is bringing it down, but can't fix it, or refuses to acknowledge the threat.
As was pointed out by Clay Shirky (and Jared Diamond) in the Blogosphere, you even have cases where collapse seems like a more reasonable course of action. One such case is when a society is forced into a level of complexity that requires a level of specialization that exceeds the resources available. No society is "too big to fail" as size, and distance from the actual work being done, can be a hindrance to the society if the distance is too great or the number of supervisors is more than it can handle.
2) The society responds to the needs of its members. As Frank Herbert put it: "A good ruler need not be a prophet. Nor even godlike. A ruler need only be sensitive. [Good government] does not depend upon laws or precedent, but upon the personal qualities of whoever governs."
This is the flaw with any political philosophy that clings to the past for the sake of continuity: if the people change, but the system of government remains exactly the same, then, if the old government does not meet the needs of the new people, conflict remains inevitable. Of course, this may not be obvious to those in charge; or even if it is noticeable, it may not be desirable for a ruler to recognize the change as it would threaten the ruler's legitimacy.
3) The society must accrue more benefits by belonging, then not belonging. This is not about "bread and circuses" but about recognizing that it is never a choice between being a part of society or being alone, but rather being better than competing societies. If your society is unjust, or too rigid, then people will leave for a society that doesn't force them into a role they don't want, or they will at least stop working as hard as the society whose members are content, and so lose out in competition.
The Bottom Line
People say they want government to be more like private business, but they don't always explain what they mean. The big difference between the two isn't a focus on profit or the level of compensation for the employee, but rather it's about judgement. Middle management (and even employees) are allowed to use their judgement to do their job in a private business (or at least in a smaller private business, large corporations tend to move further away from this). Bureaucracy enforces this standard template on management which they must follow, and in return it gives them blanket immunity from responsibility for decisions. In private management, you can make decisions which bend the rules, as long as you can demonstrate that what you're doing is good for the business.
What this boils down to in American society is this: we have leadership in both parties that is insensitive to the needs of the people. It is no longer of the people; It is of the political class. We also have a political discourse that is ran by egoists who think that they can bring on a Utopia (or bring us back to Utopia, in the case of the more right wing viewpoint). You have major problems if the first thing you do with a new proposal is not to figure out whether or not it will work, but rather you figure out whether or not it is ideologically pure, yet this is how many of our elected officials think.
Additionally, the way we are choose our leaders is increasingly coming down to likability, the ability to attract money, and the candidate's adeptness at diverting blame. What we actually need is a government that can change to meet the needs of its people and the conditions of our society. We need leaders who are interested in actually solving problems and taking responsibility instead of diverting responsibility while clinging to the perks of power. I have no idea what it will take to regenerate our society and its leaders. That's above my pay grade. What I do know is that red meat politics that are only about making sure your "team" wins isn't going to cut it.
