True balance for democracy

Public broadcasting is going religious - not balanced truth about any and all religions - but a one-sided spin about fundamentalist christian religion being the guardian of democracy. PBS was estableished to bring the facts about all sides of issues in the news and other issues that choose to be hidden from all ears and eyes. Such facts are critical in decisions about our laws and elections.
When Independent voters insist they belong to a third party, I remind them that our system of government is a two party system. Each party represents a constituent of the American public: one represents the group that has economics for manufacture of goods and services for the nation, the other represents the working people who actual produce the goods and buy the services of the national companies. Here each side bears the responsibility to explain itself.
Emotional issues are now being used to define parties. Wrong. The believers of issues can be placed in either group depending on how the people feel. They do not define the party. I am a conservative when it comes to allocating money, Republican?, perish the thought. Funds should be allocated where they will do the most good for all citizens. That does not translate into enlarging corporations. I am a liberal, long live the Democratic party!, when it comes to equalizing the playing field so everyone has the opportunity to reach their view of the Amerian dream. That does not translate into allowing funds to be spirited away to the Caymen Islands or Switzerland to evade paying income taxes for either group.
But then the American dream was stolen by salespeople to make sure that every household had the optimum number of bedrooms, baths, family rooms, and cars in their suburban homes. Acquistion was not all that satisfactory after we got into debt so we were turned to emotional issues. And labled Conservatives and Liberals, the thinking being that we could be neatly put in a cage and controlled.
I know conservatives who do approve of abortion and prayer in school. However I also know liberals who believe the same. So how did those attitudes become the dividing issues? Are we listening to the facts? Are those issues supposed to reside in politics? How can they when they do not apply to legal and constitutional rights? Wouldn't those individual issues be better decided if left to individuals? A third party would be just as divided so the answer is to define the two parties that fit our system's true representative parties that can do what they should. Or do we continue to put all power in the hands of those who would control our every last action, even in the doctor's office or our bedroom? Public television and public libraries must continue to look at all the facts.
Bill Moyers describes it well: "I've always thought the American eagle needed a left wing and a right wing. The right wing would see to it that economic interests had their legitimate concerns addressed. The left wing would see to it that ordinary people were included in the bargain. Both would keep the great bird on course. But with two right wings or two left wings, it's no longer an eagle and it's going to crash."
Naomi Sherer