I think what it comes down to is a very complex system, with so many bits and pieces that go into the problem, we can`t point to one or several.
Any society comes together under a set of basic ideas. I`m thinking, say, of a business or a community association. Certain people have a common vision....goal, they generally have a similar outlook on life, and they share common assumptions about the basics of life.
Ordinarily, the society begins, then exists for some period of time. Later in the life of that society, what is it that keeps it going? Isn`t it the express statement of the original assumptions?
For America, those basic assumptions are held in the Declaration of Independence. They`re further backed up, then set out as "law" or rules in the Constitution.
Ultimately, the people in the society either agree or disagree with the principle of "following the rules." In other words, the country at large has to agree that everyone will ultimately follow and adhere to the rules of the Constitution.
But what happens in any society, including a nation, when a major portion of the "members" (citizens) don`t want to follow the original charter anymore?
We could see the society dissolve, as one option. We could see many member leaving, and I would argue that the money leaving the financial markets is a demonstration of that. We also could see the society split into separate off-shoots.
Look at the Protestant movement in relation to the Catholic church. Societies only have a finite set of options when the members disagree at the most basic level.
What if you`re in a crowd led by someone chosen to be that leader, and the leader decides to walk off a cliff. Say, like Jim Jones, the cult leader. Do you say that "He`s our leader," therefore you too will walk off the cliff?
Arbitrarily setting the authority of a President above rational self-interest and the organization of the nation makes no sense. It`s one thing to have a partial disagreement, say along the lines of whether to invest money in education or infrastructure.
But what we have today is a disagreement at the root level of the core foundation of the United States. It isn`t that Mr. Obama isn`t "my" president, it`s the the philosophic principles Mr. Obama wants to set in place are 180-degrees from the agreement that constitutes the formation of the country itself.