For instance, the very name connotes opposition. This is logical because without opposition, there would only be one party. If one grants there is opposition, then one must ask whether the opposition hinders government or facilitates better government.

We have a recent example of possible hindrance. Leading Republicans, such as Dole and Gingrich, opposed President Clinton's proposed terrorism bill, that is, up until the pipe bombing that occurred during the Olympics in Atlanta, Georgia.

In interviews shown on ABC's Evening News, July 27, both Dole and Gingrich stated they now stand behind Mr. Clinton and will go along with whatever he says concerning terrorism. Suddenly, Mr. Clinton's bill became a bi-partison effort.

But, look at what it took to cause the joint effort to come about, 2 deaths and 110 injuries at a world event. As far as Republicans are concerned, it's kind of like closing the barn door after the horse is out, isn't it?

Opposition can be good. Many times in our history, great changes and strides were made because of opposition. An example virtually all Americans know about is the opposition Martin Luther King put up against the status quo of blacks being treated so poorly, actually being treated as less than human.

Opposition can lead to improvements in society and in our own lives. It can result in causing one to think about all the ramifications of any situation, providing one has an open mind and is not a 'one-track' thinker. With it can come compromise or an eclectic resolution to a problem.

But, what if one is dealing with people who profess to believe simply because of association. This is epitomized by people who vote a straight party ticket simply because they belong to the party.

This is the most extreme of one-track thinkers since they don't have to think at all; they have their decisions made based not on any facts or their agreement with beliefs of the candidates but because the candidates are in a specific party. How bright is that?

One of the least desirable charateristics for any leader to have is to never listen to another's ideas and draw what they can from the other person. Once the door is closed to outside ideas, the person doing so puts himself in a mental rut that doesn't promote, enhance, or lead to the best decision possible.

He doesn't make a decision based on facts but primarily on prejudices. And, that is a most unintelligent means of reaching a conclusion, especially if it is a legislative decision.

Our country and its governing is primarily a very large business, directed to helping everyone enjoy the most they can out of life, the pursuit of happiness. Usually, any sucessful businessman, businessperson, that is, will tell you business decisions should not be based on emotion but on as many facts as can be obtained.

This is not to state that gut-feelings should not enter in. Gut-feelings are one of the facts one should consider but, gut-feelings are not emotional responses. Instead, they are subconscious directions that usually lead one to the correct decision.

Gut-feelings have nothing to do with blindly making decisions based on one's political party affiliations. They are valid while the latter is not.

At this time, we really have a several party system. We have a third-party candidate (sorry, the writer knows nothing about him, not even his name) and, based on the discord in the Republican party, we may have as many as three or more parties within it.

As the reader will recall, we had nine presidential candidate hopefuls during the primaries. At that time, the Republican party was actually as many separate parties with the other party members supporting one or the other of the candidates.

The large number of hopefuls and what each said about the others indicates that Republicans are seriously divided in their beliefs. Either their statements were true or they lied on national television and in campaign speeches attempting to win primary votes.

If the former candidates vote Republican during the upcoming presidential election, each will be going against his own convictions by, in essence, blindly supporting Dole simply because Dole is the Republican candidate.

But, such a vote will not be because they perceive him as the best man. And, the writer didn't state that; they each stated it by the type of oppostion shown during the primaries.

Smart decision making? The writer doesn't think so and he sincerely hopes the voting public doesn't think so. Of course, the results of the election are actually out of our hands since the Electoral College (Congress) still holds the hammer. Each member should vote as his constituency wants but, as you know, that hasn't always occurred.

The big question is whether or not a party that is as divided as indicated can make proper decisions concerning the running of this nation? That is questionable. If a split party, regardless of the number of factions, cannot make proper decisions, what is the result?

That's simple. Ever been in a discussion where just one person is directly opposed to the group? Things sure bog down, don't they?

Let's carry this a bit further. Right now, Congress is basically controlled by the Republican party which states uncategorically that it is in opposition to President Clinton and the Democratic party. The only check to the control is the veto power of the president.

If this is the case, and everything that has been stated by people such as Gingrich indicates it is, will intelligent decisions based on facts be made or will one-track thinking dominate the proceedings?

Actually, we have a three-and-a-half year example of the effects of one-track thinking and blind decisions made by party affiliations rather than working together for the best resolution and decision.

Dole stated quite clearly immediately following the certainty of Mr. Clinton being the next president, that his party would get united and stop the efforts of the Democratic party. And, that is exactly what they tried to do.

During Mr. Clinton's administration, the Republicans have done exactly as Dole stated. But, as time went on, it also became apparent that many Republicans began splitting off from the party philosophically.

The result for the nation was that Congress bogged down on virtually every issue, on virtually every proposed bill, and wasted hundreds of man-hours of tax-payers' time and millions of tax-payers' dollars. Just considering their pay, millions were wasted since they didn't really do their jobs of resolving issues that could lead to all of our lives being better.

Usually, anytime Congress bogs down, it seems to be because of party politics, not because of issues. The writer would think most Congressmen, including members of both parties, do not really listen intently to speakers as they speak. In a discussion that is becoming heated, how many of you readers actually listen to the opposition instead of thinking of what you are going to say next?

Now, put yourself in a hall in which great rhetoric is thought to be spouted. Would you be thinking of what to express next or listening to the opposition intently and then considering what you are going to say?

If you can obtain it, review tapes of Congressmen in action in televised hearings, such as the Iran-Contra or Hill-Thomas, and note how many Congressmen were holding their own conversations while a participant was speaking. Do one better and get a tape of Mr. Clinton's l996 State of the Union Address and watch the interest displayed by Gingrich in the background.

Or, think back to the Republican party refusing to get together with Mr. Clinton and resolve the budget issue. For a politician to refuse to go into chambers in order to resolve such an important issue indicates to the writer that maybe they shouldn't even be in office.

It was a flagrant lack of fulfilling duties and any member of Congress who refused to do so should have been docked pay and, upon continued refusal, dismissed from his position. Isn't that what would happen to you is you refused to do the work you were hired to do?

Okay, let's use the budget problem further. When Republicans walked out and refused to discuss the budget any further, did every Republican believe in the walk-out or did some refuse to negotiate simply because the leaders in the party did?

The writer dares to state that not every Republican believed as the leaders. We had too many candidates in the primaries for one to even suspect all the Republicans were united during the budget battle.

If this reasoning is correct, then a major decision affecting the operation of this country was held up, not by the issue at hand, but by party politics.

How many other issues are held up in a like fashion? How many decisions in the next decade will be held up by similar immature behaviors of the so-called leaders of our nation?

The conclusion of the writer is that maybe it is time that the party system be done away with. Isn't it time to consider the best person for the job, not the person's party affiliation?

Isn't it time to demand that Congress be united as an entity that resolves issues rather than revolving around party politics. Shouldn't we have independent thinkers who vote based on the facts rather than voting a certain way because of coercion from his party or simply because he is a Republican or a Democrat?

Look at it this way. Let's say you have 100 people in a room making a decision on a dinner party. There are 55 who belong to one group and 45 that belong to another group. During the debate that inevitably comes up, it is the job of the group as a whole to make all decisions, and, in this case, let's say whether or not to have broccoli raw or cooked with cheese during the next dinner.

The group with 45 in it want the vegetable raw or cooked with cheese as long as no-fat cheese is used. The leaders in the group of 55 like broccoli raw with fat-filled cheese as a dip.

After debating the issue for several weeks, the leaders of the group of 55 walk out taking all of their group with them. If all don't follow the leaders, then they will be astrocized and put down by the other members.

Now, a decision is impossible since a majority no longer exists. And, of course, the dinner had to be postponed (just as the budget was).

But, what if the only group was the group of 100? It does not matter if ten of the 55 walk out because 90 in the group remain. And, if the majority of the 55 that remain go along with the group of 45, then a decision can be reached.

We'll say it was broccoli with no-fat cheese and, for those who also like it with real cheese, and in compromise, the choice also of having a side dish of broccoli with real cheese. And, raw broccoli will be available on a relish dish.

Maybe a stupid scenario , Ladies and Gentlemen, but isn't it really stupid for a Congressmen (or voter) to base any voting decision on party affiliation rather than fully considering the facts? What do you think?