The problem exists on both sides... Both extremes have the potential of leading to totalitarianism.
The passport stuff, RFiD an Internet control largely coming from the current administration, executive branch, and cabinet members regulation through FCC, etc. Obama's appointee Cass Sunstein is one of the largest promoters. But certainly some on the right would certainly love this kind of power for themselves, as well.
Unions do have a purpose, but some have become corrupt and caused problems for non-union workers and their rights. The bosses Do not always have their members best interests in mind, with bosses getting extra perks, leaving the lesser members out. Many have turned into big businesse, exploiting companies, until they are driven into bankruptcy or out of the country.
On the other end big business may be corrupt as well, and not have their workers best interests in mind (this is seriously not always the case). Yet some gov policies are driving business out of the country and destroying jobs. Innovation is being snuffed.
There needs to be a balance, between both extremes...
Both sides suffer with forms of institionalized racism, and discrimination, and social engineering.
No I think we need to be very careful in putting too much trust into either side. And be very careful about giving up our liberties to any government.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."- Benjamin Franklin
I was at the National WW1 Museum the other day, I was surprised to learn how similar current world events and politics were just before WW1, between statism, marxism/socialism, and nationalism. One of the lecturers there pointed out that all it would take would be something similar to the Ferninand assasination to draw us into another world war...
As far as 'separation of church and state'. Constitutionally the government is not supposed to establish a state religion, but on other end of the spectrum its not supposed to impede the 'free exercise' of beliefs of individuals either. It's a tricky and fine line. Few people ever seem to discuss the the 'free exercise' clause, and its meaning.