'cookie cutter' ideologies are a huge problem in politics and religion

[NOTE TO VOTERS & PRO: Typo in round two, I meant to say "In fact, most people were unquestioning supporters of whatever political culture they grew up with, but they became more critical later on." Sorry I didn't make sense there.] To be honest, earlier I was confused about what we were contending. Though at first Pro was apparently arguing for the truth (which lies outside of partisanship altogether), it seems that she is simply arguing for the sake of ideological originality within political and religious spheres. I think it's telling that she never originally specified why cookie cutters were a problem, only giving examples of their political views and expressing her personal disapproval of them. Earlier I said that uncritical political advocates are a growing problem in America. That was a mistake. I based that off of my personal experiences, because I am still a student, and many of my classmates adhere to one of the two big parties. However, this is not at all the big picture. A 2014 Gallup poll (http://www.gallup.com...) found that 50% of 22-year-olds identify themselves as Independent, as compared to 28% D and 18% R. Thus, while most older people are divided by party lines, the next generation is not. Pro's defense relies on the patronizing assumption that originality can not be accomplished because a large percentage, if not the majority of people, are mindless disciples of the big two parties. Besides not having any evidence to support this anecdotal claim (and more than enough evidence exists against it), there is another problem with this view. If thoughtless adherents are that much of a problem, what about a large number of people who reasonably support their party? Then wouldn't they also contribute to the problem by perpetuating the status quo? Either way, mainstream partisanship ensures that congressional legislators are unable to develop any long-term domestic strategy. Pro might argue that this stalemate is due to political conventionality, but I disagree. The average Senate campaign costs $3 million. (https://www.ieeeusa.org...) Russ Harrison of IEEE says that "...[f]or the average House race, candidates must raise about $10,000 every week for two years just to be competitive." As such, special interest groups help defray the expense. In 2014, the top 10 sectors have donated more than $257.1 million to Congressional representatives (https://www.opensecrets.org...). The #3 sector, Securities & Investment, is headed by Elliott Management, the hedge fund management corp recently responsible for Argentina's default. Another contributor in that sector is Goldman Sachs, which testified for fraud in a 2010 congressional hearing. Common sense yields that money is power. So the real reason why congressional partisanship is so bad is because it works to the benefit of contributors, as well as the two big parties. How? Legislative bickering is a distraction from the steady leak that will sink the boat, the leak being our 17-trillion-dollar deficit, the boat being us, and bank executives being mutinous sailors who fill their pockets with gold as they strap on inflatable life jackets. In short, dogmatic political adherents per se do not threaten doctrinal originality or the election process. Just ask America's 38 officially recognized parties (http://www.politics1.com...) or any campaigning congressional hopeful, who would recognize that most Americans are moderate. Without a doubt, Americans know things are wrong, but their problem isn't that they're indoctrinated: it is that the truth is being withheld from them by The Man himself. And if no one questions the actions of those responsible, nothing will change.