Have the current political parties become stifled by extremism and "hardened narratives" that don't leave room for practical solutions? Will the current major political parties be able to lead the U.S. to a dynamic economy and vibrant culture? Are the real political answers found in independents lik

A lot of questions together there. Are the current parties stifled by hardened narratives? Pretty much. The elements of dynamism are never completely gone, but yeah... institutions tend to petrify over time, and with the US voting system, the two main parties are far too protected from any disruptive forces that could snap them out of it. Since voting for a third party, when the plurality system artificially limits you to vote for just one candidate, means throwing away your precious vote and seeing your enemies benefit... the two parties with the monopoly can get complacent. In fact, it's surprising that the events waking them up in the first half of last century (progressive era, great depression, two world wars, a sense that revolution was possible) lasted as long as they did. The factor which kept this from happening faster is that the ideology and regional demographics of the two parties were out-of-kilter, with conservative southern Democrats as a wild card in the two-party dynamics; but Nixon and Reagan and then finally W accomplished the regional realignment, so we're back to only two clearly-delineated parties, and the power of the voters is at a low ebb. The parties know it, and that's why they're engaging in zero-sum tactics, a mudslinging and take-no-prisoners attitude which hurts the country. Will the current parties be able to lead, etc.? I don't really think it's the role of politicians to lead the economy and the culture; government is a big enough job. I mean certainly, I agree that government has impact on all that, but that's not the same as leadership. Still, however you put it, they're clearly doing a horrible job at the current moment, and it doesn't look as if they plan to change on their own. Are the real answers from independents? Umm... as I said above, just voting for independents in the current voting system only manages to shoot yourself in the foot. Personally, I think one of our best hopes is to change that system. With something like approval voting (simply removing the restriction to vote for only one), other parties could become a credible threat to the two big ones. Whether that would lead to new parties growing to win, or whether the big ones would manage to awake from their torpor and actually start adapting in a useful way, I can't say. But either way, we'd be better off. Still, I have to say, figures like Bloomberg don't look so good to me. In the end, the label of "independent" sounds great, but you don't get anywhere in the long run politically without organizing, cooperating — that is, forming a party. Also, sure Bloomberg's a smart guy, but he's hugely out of touch with how most Americans live, and he's basically lived his whole life surrounded by yes-men; not a promising start for really making the changes we need.

The old bromide that "the truth lies in the middle" is not generally true. What's the "practical" or "real political answer" when the choices are slavery and freedom? Slavery on odd-numbered days only? Is that the "reasonable"  or "balanced" or "diverse" compromise? "Diversity I guess tells us that the independent, virtuous, compromise between the hardened narratives that 2+2=4 and 2+2=5 is that 2+2=4.5.  It is a standard tactic of the left to always move the goal post as far toward the statist approach -- on any issue -- as they can, thus automatically redefining the 50-yard line more and more toward their desired direction. Those on the right accept the ploy, and want to appear "reasonable", and so they apologetically move over to the new, left-shifted, "50-yard line" in a spirit of being "reasonable".  Meanwhile, people like the tea-partiers and other constitutionalists, who have not moved their goal posts at all, get called extremists. The constitution, is certainly "the law of the land" if anything, including obamacare, is.  And yet adherents to it are called extremists. If you really want "diversity", then abandon the one-size-fits-all centralized planning schemes of the left. Allow a multiplicity -- a diversity -- of plans to flourish, in a free society.  Also abandon crony-capitalism, which is not a form of capitalism at all. It certainly is not a "hardened narrative" to insist that the rules are the rules, especially not when those rules themselves -- the ones in the constitution -- mainly serve the purpose of ensuring the type of diversity (i.e., freedoms) that most of us, including the person asking the question, say we want.  I prefer that government would have its impact on culture by fostering freedom and respect for individual property rights and liberties.

I believe the media has been responsible for leading Americans to mistakenly believe both parties are equally responsible for the situation we are in. This comes from not wanting to offend any viewers (Ratings = $$$)  But the fact is that Progressives have long rejected the Founder's interpretation of the Constitution. And in the past 40 years at least, the Democrat Party has been accepting more radicals, Socialists and other Leftists and Progressives until now the Dems bear little resemblance to the Dems of just twenty years ago. The Dems are becoming more and more radicalized and extremist and that is how I'd answer your question. Read the 2008 article, "The Radical Takeover of the Democrat Party," for a bit more detail. http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/the-radical-takeover-of-the-democrat-party