The main political divide of the 20th century was between capitalism and socialism, which in the U.
S.
were identified, respectively, with the Republican and Democrat parties.
In the end both systems blended, with the resulting compromise favoring capitalism in terms of economic development, and leaning to socialism as to public services and entitlements.
This blending eventually led the concentration of power and wealth at the top of the social pyramid, within what is being referred to as "the ruling class".
Under this arrangement the members of political and economic elites control the levers of power and use them to further their own interests.
As a result the main contest, which once had pitted the right against the left, is now between the high - those who monopolize both power and wealth - and the low, with shrinking income and influence but holding an overwhelming numerical advantage.
The claims of the high rest on expertise and experience; the low relies on the rights to individual initiative and self-government.
The current election still opposes Republicans and Democrats.
But a far more intense struggle is rapidly coming to the surface.
On one side are the elites, commonly referred to as "Wall Street" and "Washington"; on the other "Main Street" and the "country class", spearheaded by (but by no means limited to) the Tea Party.
This quickly spreading conflict endangers the representative principle on which the entire structure of the Republic is based.
It is therefore critical to develop some potential common ground before this erosion of trust and communication proceeds much further.
This is particularly critical as the middle class, which traditionally arbitrates between the rulers and the people, is shrinking: a small segment is rising into the elite, while the majority is pushed down into the proletariat.
The solution is not, as many are claiming, a drastic shrinkage and curtailment of government.
Such a development will be two-sided: on one hand is an increase of liberty, on the other the risk of anarchy.
History shows that in periods of anarchy, where there is little or no government, life tends to be nasty, brutish and short, while the economy sinks to the bare subsistence level.
But history also shows that excessive government intervention in the life of citizens, whether through extreme taxation or intrusive regulation, stifles initiative and innovation, limits the drive to create and build, destroys wealth and fosters inertia.
Where then is the true balance? We can all take care of ourselves in "normal" circumstances, where the conditions of our life are within our power.
What we cannot deal with are drastic changes beyond our control, be they natural disasters, wars, or economic changes so unexpected and far-reaching that our usual means of coping are overwhelmed.
We do not want government to interfere with our lives in such "normal conditions".
Private initiative is not only perfectly adequate there, but does a far better job, particularly in the economic realm.
We also provide the government with the power, freedom of initiative and economic means to insure that these conditions continue to prevail, and are restored when disrupted by an unforeseen event.
Power is delegated to government to deal with what is too big for us to handle on our own.
In other words, while we can act (and should be free to act) in our own interest, we give our government the means and power to act in the national interest.
This is the foundation of the representative principle, and of the bond of trust between the governed and the governing.
The greatest threat to this bond is the concentration of power or wealth, because it gives its beneficiaries the illusion of self-sufficiency and isolates them from the common citizen.
"Power corrupts", said Lord Acton, "and absolute power corrupts absolutely".
Something very similar can be said of wealth.
A nation where power or material riches carry no obligation or responsibility to the common good is a house divided.
It is heading for internal strife, and possibly downfall.
At the same time let us not forget that a nation where everyone is solely responsible for one's fate is no house at all.
It is not the victory of one side over the other, but a correct and sustainablebalance that will determine the future of the nation.