ge, ethnicity, etc. I think that it is a little paradoxical. I believe this to be characteristic of the evolution of our social nature. So the nature of the individual then has become one of conflicting interests. He is by nature a social being, but at the same time, he has become conditioned to utilize his social nature to estrange and segregate himself from the total society. He adheres to people like him, who have common interests, but shuns or conquers those other groups whom he is ignorant to. Yet, as our society evolves, so does our nature. Now, using the example of the United States, we have held on to our self-righteousness but let go of certain objective factors. We in the United States, no longer associate a person with their background, and instead characterize them as a citizen of the U.S.A. or of Germany, France, etc. We base our social nature less on objective physical factors and more on common interest / intellectual objective factors. We have let go of an insistent desire for politics of redemption and have become more attracted to a politics of convenience which can acclimatize itself to the various conflicts in interests which arise in a diverse society. However, just as Marx believed, this change only succeeds in the estrangement of a being which is by nature meant to be social. So I do not believe that a politics of convenience is correct for me, or the future society in which I will live. Rather, I think that politics, in every way, should be a combination of human ideologies, seeing as human society is a combination or various cultures, ethnicities, nationalities, and forms of politics. Would it not be hard for everyone to adhere to the politics of one type of people? History has shown that even the most prosperous of societies have succumb to downfall. But then we must ask why? Look at the “Great” Roman Empire, it was great, but it fell. How did it not last, it had strong leaders, but...
