View this from a distant perspective, if you will:

Imagine a scenario where America is deeply divided over the invasion and occupation of a foreign land. American armed forces find themselves in a guerrilla war, fighting insurgents. Congress finds itself without strong leadership, and legislative strategies are used to try to hamper support for the war. Foreign fighters try to influence American public opinion through acts of brutality. A wealthy New York businessman considers starting a third political party. The Republican nominee supports the occupation; the Democratic nominee opposes it.

Sound familiar? Before you answer, here are some specifics: the year is 1900; the land, the Phillippine Islands; the insurgents, led by Emilio Aguidnaldo; the New York businessman, Andrew Carnegie; the candidates, McKinley and Bryan.

The Anti-Imperialists were caught in an agonizing dilemma. McKinley represented the party of imperialism; Bryan in Carl Schurz’s words was “the evil genius of the anti-imperialist cause,” loathed for his betrayal in the matter of the treaty [of Paris of 1898] and feared for his radicalism. Schurz met with Carnegie, Gamaliel Bradford and Senator Pettigrew at the Plaza Hotel in New York in January, 1900, in an effort to organize a third party so that the American people would not “be forced by the two rotten old party carcasses to choose between two evils.” Carnegie subscribed $25,000 on the spot, while the others made up a matching sum. Shortly afterward, members of the steel trust with whom Carnegie was then negotiating the sale of his company told him that if he opposed McKinley the deal would not go through. Preferring United States Steel to a third party, Carnegie withdrew his support, received his shares and retired from business.

[The Proud Tower, Barbara W. Tuchman, 1966, p. 191]

This was at the dawn of a new era, both in the United States, and around the world. In the years to come, nationalism and socialism would rise, individualism would wane, and a world war triggered by a relatively trivial event would kill millions, only to convince the the world that more of the same was in order.

Are we at such a crossroads again today? Only time will tell. I prefer to take the optimistic view that we are entering a new era, but it will be one which will bode well for humanity as a whole.