I agree PN. I have stated in other blogs that no adequate gauge exists to measure the depth of hatred within the souls of Southern, Bible thumping, gun totin' Southerners towards Blacks.
Whites won't admit it and Blacks refuse to believe it and Republicans exploit it.
They will believe it if they sit on their butts and allow the GOP to win both houses. I guarantee when the GOP tears this country apart and steps on the neck of the poor -honey boo boo and Sha-na-na will join forces in 2016!
Unfortunately GENERATIONS of Whites visualized and continue to visualize Blacks as Sub-Human. To be worked and BRED to develop strength and endurance. And along with that unfortunate physical misery being thrust upon them, came the inevitable psychic damage they had to endure. For generations!
You don't repair that kind of human damage overnight. No amount of Food Stamps or Cell phones solves that kind of torture.
Racism is not dead and it won't be...for generations to come. It will take trusting baby steps to complete this monstrous marathon of racial repair. We must prevail.
As Martin Luther King famously put it:
“Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that.
Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.”
Do you think maybe the issue is less Republican versus democrat and more a matter of a polarizing political and cultural view point that has been adopted over the last two and a half decades?
I do. But what we have is a stark choice between visions of the political parties. You get past each side trying to "define" the other by examining what they stand for and what they DO. The cultural goals of each side are distinct, and in many cases are OPPOSITES. The people will chose whether they want a society where the standard is a "hand up" or where the standard is a "hand-out." They will also - eventually IMHO - chose whether they want a society where the family unit and a moral compass is at the core, or whether it's "anything goes" and let government solve the problems that government itself creates.
So what that ultimately does is make it a Republican versus Democrat "issue" after all. But that's not necessarily a bad thing, since politics is essentially an ADVERSARIAL process anyway. If it weren't, then there wouldn't be any "winners" or "losers." (They haven't been able to eliminate THAT point yet, but I'm sure they'll try to do it somehow.)
Ronald Reagan said it best: in elections, people ought to vote on whether they are "better off" today than they were at the time of the last election. In the case of the November elections, the people are going to speak on that issue.
"It is difficult for reasonable Americans to comprehend why voters in the South continue electing Republicans that campaign on perpetuating living conditions most Americans consider unacceptable."
When you see how Democrats in the North have wrecked their state economies and their cities, it is not too difficult to see why the GOP continues to win in the South. The people here DON'T WANT TO GO THE SAME WAY.
I don't believe in the inevitability of massive government debt, escalating crime, and a nanny state that thinks it knows it all. When government is given total control, it has proven time and time again that it makes problems WORSE.
It is in fact more a matter of a polarizing political and cultural view point that has been adopted over these last two or three decades.
Having said that I also believe that the stage was set for this to happen when the Democrat and Republican parties joined forces to lock out other political parties from having any access to the primary elections.
Our primary elections should be open to any and all political parties by simply allowing a candidate to register with the party of their choice and paying a qualifying fee to that party.
I find very few people who seem to understand this issue.
What we now have is only two parties allowed into the contest.
Therefore it can only be "Republican versus Democrat". That is not a good thing.
I agree a two party system is foolish. Unfortunately the United States legislature is set up in such a way that promotes the two party system. We (the citizens) are improperly represented through our votes at the federal level.
I see no problem at all in getting rid of the primary elections altogether. As well as changing the voting system for federal positions from a plurality voting system to change to an Approval voting system.
"I see no problem at all in getting rid of the primary elections altogether. As well as changing the voting system for federal positions from a plurality voting system to change to an Approval voting system."
shannalat you are going to have to help me here. I'm not sure what you are proposing but I am very interested
I was not proposing that we get rid of primary elections. I was suggesting that we return to allowing any party to enter a candidate in the primary election without the petition process which is now the only way for a third party candidate to be considered.
We might be in agreement but I need to know more of what you speak.
Thank you very much.
I personally think it is time to storm the Bastille. As long as the process remains adversarial between THE TWO parties it will remain a blood sport with only one 'winner.'
I can't see any real change to the two-party system in our lifetime. Only if things get SO BAD and the people get SO DISENCHANTED with it will there be change. It looks now like Democrats are happy with what they have and Republicans would like to be happy with what they have. Fragmenting the GOP would only play into the hands of Democrats and their agenda. The rest of the people know this, so I can't see any real expansion of the party system. The "minority parties" would always lose and the Dems would continue to wreck the country.
That's why I think we're stuck with the two.