After Obama's election, many are now saying "yes" - they say the "takers" in the country are outnumbering the "producers", and the takers will always vote democratic because it is the party of free stuff. They say the entitlement society is here to stay and as long as the voters are getting free stuff they will vote the democrat party line.
The results of the election seem to indicate that possibility – more than 96% of blacks voting for Obama and in the heavily populated areas of Philadelphia and Cleveland over 99%. According to election results more than 90% of the African American community turned out to vote and 59 voting districts recorded -0- votes for Romney. The experts say it is highly unlikely that that percentage of voters turned out, and hard to believe not even one vote for Romney, but since it did not make a difference in the election, no one really followed up and investigated.
I am not denigrating blacks, but being 13% of the population and 48% of the welfare rolls they have a vested interest in the entitlement society. Why such a large proportion of blacks are on welfare is the subject of another Blog, but they certainly are not a voting block that will promote conservatism...at least not yet. A lot of very impressive young black conservatives may change that. After all, at some point young ambitious blacks will start asking themselves: "What has the Democratic party done for me?"
Obama received 71% of the Hispanic vote, even though the Hispanic culture tends to be somewhat conservative - strong family and religious values and generally hard working people. But large numbers of Hispanics are receiving federal assistance of some kind so maybe the fact they are getting free stuff in large numbers, the democrats have that voting block locked up. I don't think so. The GOP did a poor job this last election of reaching out to Hispanics, and I don't mean "accepting" illegal immigration; studies have shown that large portions of the US Hispanic population are also against illegal immigration. They want jobs and opportunity to achieve.
Single women and young people also went for Obama. Some say single women look at the government as their "safety net". Young people educated in our public schools and colleges are indoctrinated in liberalism and as a result, until they get into the real world most of them are democrats.
All of this should indicate that the democrats are in the driver’s seat for a long time, maybe for good.
I don't believe it. I believe there is something in the human spirit that makes most people want to work and produce something. But in this economy that is difficult for millions of people, and call me an optimist but I think many of those "takers" want a good job and the government out of their lives.
After all what is Conservatism?
* The freedom to pursue your goals with unlimited opportunity and without a massive regulatory government.
* Reasonable taxation - enough to run the government for the purposes our founders intended, but not to burden the populous with meaningless wasteful programs, and a government that lives within its means.
* Care for the old, the poor, and the disabled but not redistribution of income from successful people to able bodied workers.
I believe the problem this election was the messenger. Romney was not able to articulate what conservatives really stand for... Reagan did it in 1980. Conservatives need to dump the old guard GOP and find a leader that can preach that message. Luckily we have bench of talented young conservatives and hopefully they will start taking power from the GOP dinosaurs that have lost their way.
7 comments:
The problem is not Conservatism, it's the GOP. It's not the party of Conservatism any more than the Democratic party is. I'm not saying the Libertarian party is the answer, but unless the GOP has a top-to-bottom housecleaning and makeover -- or a new party rises up -- then yes, Conservatism is dead.
By the way, I don't think you adequately understand Hispanic culture. Yes, they are hardworking and have strong values -- but their religious values are overwhelmingly Catholic, and that religion has little in common with the evangelical roots of conservatives in America, other than the abortion issue. Catholics are far more socially liberal than non-Catholic religious American conservatives.
While I'm on the topic, as long as conservatives focus so much on morality and religious issues, they'll remain a minority. Times are changing, as they always do, and a one-size-fits-all morality no longer applies (and yes, I recognize the inherent contradiction in that statement). Doesn't the saying "live and let live" have Christian roots? Because most politically active Christians/Evangelicals don't seem to live by that adage.
I had no idea I had raised such an expert, you need to start a Blog!
OK, let me seriously address your comments:
Conservatism will never be dead - but I agree that the GOP needs a top-to-bottom housecleaning.The problem with a new party, say a 'Conservative' party,would only divide the vote and guarantee Democratic control. I have many Libertarian leanings, but that party has its own set of problems; they couldn't even get as many votes as Ralph Nader did when he ran. Re-read those Conservative principles in the Blog, they have nothing to do with a political party.
Catholics are Christians and have much more in common with the other Christian religions than you seem to believe. And I don't think they are any more socially liberal that the non-Catholic Christian.
Times may be changing but fundamental morality has never changed. I challenge you to tell me which of the ten commandments have "changed" after all these centuries. You paint Christians/Evangelicals with a broad brush which is not realistic - I could do the same thing with Atheists/Agnostics.
Religion has no place in politics in a diverse society such as ours, and the fact that it has assumed such a strong position is one of the polarizing factors that keep people from agreeing on solutions to many hard social issues. It also isn't likely to change anytime soon.
As to poor people taking advantage of the system, that is a 1960's/70's concept that doesn't get much traction in current reality. Poor people taking public assistance didn't destroy the economy in the US. It collapsed due to mismanagement and greed, made possible by BOTH political parties, not to mention an unnecessary war in Iraq that sucked BILLIONS from the economy. The Government finally stepped in to keep people from turning to crime or starving, and it appears from the lower unemployment numbers and slowly improving economy that is is working. A rising economy is self-regulating with more jobs, greater Government revenue, etc., etc. Deficits should reduce with increased tax revenue, even if there is no tax increase. Once the unemployed are reduced the level of assistance will decease, as it always has in past recessions.
There is something around 2-3% of the population that will always take advantage of Government programs with a goal of not doing anything for what they receive. If they don't get assistance they will just take what they need from those that have it, or end up in jail and still be a burden on society. That 2-3% burden is just an overhead of a large, complex society. The vast majority of unemployed, that are poor and receiving assistance, are people that want to work. That is why they stand in line for hours at the unemployment office rather than sit at home drinking beer and watching TV. Job creation solves that problem.
The people are not the problem, and that is one of the things the GOP fails to understand. The problem is the system and the way it serves the people that created it. The issues are job matching, retraining as jobs change, regional revitalization, the deterioration of our infrastructure, education and the general state of the economy. If the Republican Party would pay attention to what the needs of the electorate are, rather than staying mired in old ideology, they could move forward.
Another issue is that the minute Race is introduced as an element of an arguement the reader will take a position and the opportunity to change a vote, or an attitude is lost. Just stating that race is not an issue makes it part of the discussion. The percentage of blacks and hispanics in the poorer population is due to history, educational opportunity and economic reality. White people have always had an advantage in this country because it was founded by Europeans, and it continues to be skewed towards caucasian control. If there were truly equal opportunity in this country the ratios of minority poor would eventually cease to exist. Rather than point out that Blacks or Hispanics do "this or that" I think the issue is poor and disadvantaged people tend to do "this and that". There are a lot of white people bilking the system as well....many of them wear suits.......as we witnessed over the past ten years in the financial system. That point made, in my many years of traveling all over the world, I can state without exception that ALL dominant societies are Racist, so America has no special status in that regard. Race, like Religion, has no place in political discourse. All stated "in my humble opinion, of course".
Geez I've raised another expert...
You need to start listening to your experts -- especially that Nighthawk character, he's obviously smarter than both of us. Especially about the greatest drain on our system being not the "poor and disadvantaged," but the ones wearing suits. Look at the wonton destruction of wealth, prosperity and even lives in the wake of the 2008 economic collapse, caused largely by Wall Street. And how many of those people went to jail? In terms of corruption, we may not be a match for Mexico, but we're getting there....
Any talk of Democrat or Republican politicians is pointless; they're the same thing, all corrupt to their core. And that's not necessarily because crooks get elected. As Nighthawk implies, it's the system itself that's broken. The politicians get in there, and then they're beholden to the power brokers, whether they're party members, lobbyists, senior politicians, whatever. It's just one giant cesspool of corruption. You don't change things by changing the players; it's like changing the roster of a football team when the GM and coach are inept.
There is such a thing as "low information voter" because we're too smart to waste too much of our time learning or obsessing about things that can't be changed without a much bigger crisis, revolution, or catastrophic natural disaster/terrorist attack. It's the same reason why this comment rambles so much; I've got much better things to do than to compose something so well-written as Nighthawk's comment. Our country will melt down into a pool of slag and corruption with or without my commentary, so I'm just going to enjoy the ride while I can.
How's THAT for optimism?
Nighthawk should be smart, I trained him :-)
Post a Comment