Getting deeply philosophical, we could ask, what are humans? But before going there, humans are faced with dilemmas, and rarely, if ever, have enough foresight to understand the full ramifications of any given action/policy. Another problem is humans don't really agree on what is good, even if all ramifications of actions/policies were grasped. Also, humans have a problem telling the difference between faith (guessing all the effects of policy) and knowledge (having all the facts, and knowing all the ramifications). Man also has a problem telling the difference between imagination and reality, making it hard to tell the difference between truth and lies. Then, in a two party political system, each party will try to please at least 51% of voters. Otherwise, a party could cease to exist, as well as the benefits of holding power. If need be, they will stay relevant by exploiting human nature, as it is largely "ego" driven, meaning emotionally driven, without the requisite knowledge to temper emotions. Meanwhile, human existence is plagued and cursed with inequality, and yet, it worships diversity, even as it sees a need to establish some sense of equality to escape the he'll that diversity presents. As for separation, it follows upon man's drive to be unique, special, and therefor different. Generally, man experiences bifurcation, and cognitive dissonance. It could be no matter what policies men set as individuals or as groups, he is damned to face dilemmas no matter what. Depending how dangerous the perceived dilemma, emotions may run high, as ignorance rules the day.
Half of the population isn't the vast majority. The vast majority of the South disagreed with abolishment
Re-quoted for your re-reading. "Fortunately, the vast majority of the North agreed " the south didnt, which is why there was a war.
Sorry, I see no error there. For something to be considered progress, the vast majority needs to consider it such. The majority of the north saw it as progress. The south did not. Thus, the Civil War where one side forced it's view on the other. Are you suggesting we should have an armed conflict over things like transgenders using bathrooms? Or maybe kneeling for the anthem? When one side does not see the other's it might come to war if they cannot agree that something is progress. A society wishing to remain civil resorts to other means besides war.
My argument is that for something to be seen as progress, the majority doesn't have to come to an agreement to it (your premise). Now, I don't have the numbers of South and North Americans back then, but given the casualties, I reckon it was roughly the same... Probably worse if you count the slaves, who most definitely disagreed with being enslaved.
If you have a population where the vast majority (not just talking about 50.1%) of the people want a particular change, history labels this "progress", and the change is made - usually with little debate. When you have an opinion or a desire for a particular change that you like but your neighbor doesn't, this isn't called progress - even if you think it is the right thing. Your neighbor must also think it is right and must also consider it to be progress. It is always easier to maintain the status quo than to change something. Therefore, a larger majority is needed to change something vs. that which is required to keep something the same. This is why the process for a constitutional amendment requires such a large majority of states to accomplish. The left (to keep with the spirit of this thread) continually want to push changes they call "progress" on to - in many cases - a majority of people who oppose this view. This is not progress. This is an assault.
The issues are what divide, not to mention brain structure/physiology/upbringing,place Here are the main ones, let me know if I forgot any: Gun control or lack thereof. Freedom from religious delusions in govt affairs, I mean freedom of religion and being able to believe any old crazy shit. Man made global warming/science/environment/quality of life and health. The poor and disadvantaged. Like that guy Jesus talked about. Abortion rights vs rights of the unborn. This is a tough one. Govt good vs govt bad. Dept of Offense, I mean war, military industrial complex/military readiness - to invade other smaller countries at will. Nationalism vs Globalism Social welfare/safety net vs "tough luck , you are on your own, hop along on that one good leg" - see Jesus, above. Capitalism vs Socialism. Wealth distribution vs those with the most wins. See Jesus, above. Plutocracy vs Democracy, see "money in politics" Tribalism vs pan-racism. See Jesus, above. ***************************** So in all these case above, the dems/progressives win. In each case above conservatives are on the wrong side. Mostly they are the wrong side of what Jesus said. Which is ironic.