We think of the 60's as the era of protests, war, and great music. We joke about the 70's with its disco and funny hair and clothing styles. Some of us condemn the 80's for its greed.

What should be the byword for the 90's?

How about polarization?

1991's Gulf War seemed popular enough, but there was a strange undercurrent of dissent nonetheless. Many people said that they supported the troops, but not their mission (whatever that means), and other voices cried "No Blood for Oil!" When asked what WOULD be worth the shedding of blood, these voices fell silent.

Despite his high approval rating one year before the election, George Bush was to lose to a relatively obscure governor.

It didn't take the new president long to generate controversy, but no matter what the issue, the battle lines were drawn only on party lines. Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, and Monicagate were interchangeable. You lined up with your faction no matter what.

Indeed, at the very moment that Clinton was impeached, his vice president called him "one of the greatest presidents." I doubt that the Framers would have imagined that "impeached" and "greatest presidents" could be used in the same sentence.

1995 saw the O. J. Simpson verdict. Here, an obviously guilty defendant was acquitted based on tribalism, nothing more. Jury nullification was the fancy term used to describe this process, but the core issue affects more than the legal system.

On Thanksgiving, 1999, we were introduced to Elian Gonzalez, and polarization reached fever pitch. Groups that had never before uttered the words "father's rights" were now campaigning under that umbrella, weak-kneed politicians ran for cover, and SOME conservatives lined up with the Cuban exiles.

Sadly, on this issue more than others in recent memory, one gets a distinct feeling that many would have sided with the exiles, if only they would not be identified with such a "Right Wing" enterprise.

Which brings us to the other side of polarization: Limiting reasoned debate on any issue by marginalizing the other side; in other words-- political correctness. What good are first amendment rights if speech codes have developed that effectively preclude exercising these rights?

One group may be upset that the Confederate flag flies atop the capitol in South Carolina. Another may not like how Native Americans are depicted in a particular movie or television show. Surely, they are entitled to their opinions, but by what logic or legal theory can these opinions be imposed on an entire country?

Polls have always been with us, but it was only in the last few years that they are run on virtually everything, and most often for a sinister purpose.

While polls give the ILLUSION of presenting a consensus, they do nothing of the kind. The response depends upon the question, of course: "Should Elian be returned to his father?" versus "Should Elian be returned to a Stalinist dictatorship, at the supposed behest of his long absent father, where he will be an agent of the State, learn how to perform sabotage, and be forced to work in the cane fields?"

Did it matter that 88% of the American public was against entering the war before Pearl Harbor? Did Hitler's 90 percent approval rating make him a great guy? If a majority of Southerners were against Civil Rights pre-1960, would that make them right?

But the worst fruit of polarization is destruction of the truth.

Prevalent now, courtesy of Hegel and Marx, is the curious notion which holds that if there are two widely opposing points of view, the truth must be somewhere in the middle. What a pernicious fallacy! How can this theory reconcile the very real possibility that one side actually is completely false and the other is completely true?

Related to this is the current state of the electoral process-- choosing between the lesser of two evils.

It is under this sordid banner--the bogus consensus--that we enter the 21st century. Don't be surprised if things get a lot worse before they get better.