In the larger scheme of things, our society is advancing intellectually, not regressing. We no longer think the Earth is flat. We no longer think the Sun revolves around the Earth. And we are less likely to believe government propaganda in times of war.

It is true many of our American brothers and sisters have no clue and believe what they are told if they even have an opinion at all. And I take no comfort in the fact that over 50 million people voted for Bush in 2004 despite uncontroverted evidence that he is dishonest and incompetent, or that some people still think that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction before the U.S. invaded in March 2003.

But as explained in last Sunday's New York Times, there is more public division over the Iraq War than there ever was over Vietnam. This may surprise some people whose image of 1960's draws from newsreels of street protests and hippies. But it took years for the public to truly turn against that vulgar war, and remember that in 1968 -- the year of the protest and the high water mark of the hippie era -- voters elected Richard Nixon as president, as reactionary and conservative a candidate as we could ever imagine.

According to the Times, "No military conflict in modern times has divided Americans on partisan lines more than the war in Iraq, scholars and pollsters say — not even Vietnam. . . . And those divisions are likely to intensify in what is expected to be a contentious fall election campaign. The latest New York Times/CBS News poll shows what one expert describes as a continuing 'chasm' between the way Republicans and Democrats see the war. Three-fourths of the Republicans, for example, said the United States did the right thing in taking military action against Iraq, while just 24 percent of the Democrats did. Independents split down the middle. 'The present divisions are quite without precedent,' said Ole R. Holsti, a professor of political science at Duke University and the author of 'Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy.' The Vietnam War caused a wrenching debate that echoes to this day and shaped both parties, but at the time, public opinion did not divide so starkly on party lines, experts say. The partisan divide on Iraq has fluctuated but endured across two intensely fought campaigns in which war and peace — and the overarching campaign against terrorism — have figured heavily. Each party has its internal differences, especially on future strategy for Iraq."

Thank God for this divide. Imagine if people thought like sheep and went along with the government whenever it told us to support the war. This is what happened during the Vietnam War, and nearly 60,000 American men died, not to mention over a million war dead on the other side.

Vietnam had one positive consequence: it made the American people more skeptical over war and it's now much harder to convince the public to support armed conflict. This is called the " Vietnam Syndrome."

After the Gulf War in 1991, the first President Bush was triumphant, declaring, "By God, we've kicked the Vietnam syndrome once and for all!" This revealing comment shed light on the government's motives during that war, when we claimed to care about the sovereignty of Kuwait, which Saddam Hussein had invaded, even though our government routinely supports military governments and looks the other way when our allies do the same thing. The first President Bush's reference to ridding ourselves of the Vietnam Syndrome confirmed what we had suspected all along: he was a war-monger. Fortunately, the Gulf War did not help Bush I gain re-election. His campaign was destroyed by a bad economy.

While the public is still easily manipulated, it's harder to shove garbage down our throats. Owing to the fact that we still swallow our share of bullshit, I would say that we take two steps forward for each step back.

It's a tough road. The con artists are working on new ways to advance propaganda. As the Times indicates in Sunday's story, the Republicans will campaign this fall on a war platform and try to show the Democrats are anti-war weaklings who don't care about American security. I leave nothing past these animals in their efforts to scare the shit out of us in supporting a few more years of militarism.

One disturbing aspect of public opinion and foreign policy is that the suits who run the government think that bi-partisanship over foreign policy is a good thing. According to the Times, "Many experts and members of both parties say they worry about the long-term consequences of such bitter partisan polarization and its effect on the longstanding tradition — although one often honored in the breach — that foreign policy is built on bipartisan trust and consensus. 'The old idea that politics stops at the water's edge is no longer with us, and I think we've lost something as a result,' said John C. Danforth, a former senator and an ambassador to the United Nations under President Bush. Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, said, 'There used to be some unwritten rules when it came to foreign policy.'"

I reject any notion that it's good manners to avoid dissent on matters of foreign policy. Good manners gets our children and friends and brothers and sisters maimed and killed. These are not usually the children of politicians who articulate an Ivory Tower notion of foreign policy holding that we all have united interests around the world. We do not. There may have been a day when we all agreed on foreign policy and no one second guessed the government on war and peace. If the presidency of George W. Bush has accomplished anything, it's that those days are behind us, praise the Lord.