Cliff, ignorance is prevalent on both sides.
And besides that , if you really want to take a look at the true roots of division/race instead of just the last 8 years you might want to consider who freed the slaves and the belief in individualism that supported it.
The line that divides is most definatly drawn by the lefts consistant attempts to install an entitlement mentallity on any one who is not just a plain ole white guy.
Its been that way for decades now.
I’ve got news for you, Sunshines – welcome to the year 2008. The Republicans rose to a majority party (not for long, but just the same…) by absorbing and replacing the southern Dixiecrats and they’re voting base. The Democrats abandoned them, so they went to the GOP. Remember, the Party of Lincoln couldn’t get a vote for 100 years in the south. Now the GOP dominates the South (not for long?).
If you guys think the Dems were racist in Dixie, just wait for the general election! I wonder how many white women will be winking at Obama on the TV…
I’ve got news for you, Moonbats – welcome to the year 2008.
You guys propell race to the front of every issue as often as you can.
Without it you would not be able to give any creedance to all the entitlements and crap you want to give away that doesnt belong to you.
When I used to sell cars what I would do upon meeting the customer was to mention something political in order to find out which side of the isle they were on.
If they were liberal I would convince them that they deserved the car for a number of reasons that involved all the unjust things that have happened to them. I made them the deserving victim.
If they were conservatives I would go into the economic viability of their choice and how safe the car was for their family. If was an american car it was all that much easier.
I didnt stay in the business for 3 years because I wasnt selling cars.
The tactic you refer to is called “poisoning the well of discourse” and is an age-old fallacy of logic. It works well in politics because many people will allow their emotion-based partisan hatreds to cloud their critical thinking skills.
If Obama loses, it’s because the country is racist. Even though that does not stand up to valid deductive or even inductive reasoning, many Obama supporters will believe it because they have real, deep-seated fears about racism and such a statement appeals to those emotions.
Oh but the fun continues. Once the discourse is dragged down to that “emotional” level, logic and reasoning no longer work. In fact, “rationality” itself is then described as an oppressive tool. In other words, the attempt to offer constructive arguments that something OTHER than racism led to his defeat would inherently be viewed ITSELF as promoting racial hatred. Yep, there’s arsenic in our drinking water now.
When shining a light on this, it’s sort of entertaining to watch the aftermath. Some of the weaker-minded will scurry and, feeling threatened, try to change the subject by bringing up Republicans, Hitler, the Spanish Inquisition, or some other unpopular enemy so as to rally support amongst their sympathizers and weasle out of a critical examination. Either that, or they will start giving a sob story about a personal plight in their lives so that we’re distracted from the real issues by their case of “victimhood.”
History provides us with plenty of examples… Nebuchadnezzar in biblical times, the regicide perpetrators during the fall of Charles I, guests on the Jerry Springer Show, etc. So Sharpton is in great company.
Until recently, it seemed that Sharpton’s style of demogoguery worked only on those committed to his “cause.” But now, I wonder if his methods are becoming more socially acceptable. Afterall, if we live in political times when the word “marriage” can so easily be redefined, couldn’t Sharpton and his ilk redefine what “bigot” means to include anyone, no matter how reasonable, that dares oppose them?
First of all the “politics of division long predates Karl Rove or George Bush.” Have you forgotten the James Byrd adds ran against him the first time he ran. Have you forgotten that many democrats still refuse to admit he was elected in 2000 and for several months they referred to him as President Selected vice President elect. That is pretty divisive. Have you forgotten the adds saying if you elect republicans more black churches will burn. I won’t even go into the over the top things said by Diane Watson and Maxien waters about Ward Connerly and Clarence Thomas. Karl Rove is a pussy cat when it comes to the real king of slash and burn politics, James Carville. Dick Morris is also a master of it and he has worked for both Republicans and Democrats.
The Clintons were masters of it. That is part of the reason George Bush successfully ran as a “uniter not a divider.” Of course when he got to Washington he got a rude awakening and discovered that was not going to work. It is hard to work with people who will not acknowledge the legitimacy of your presidency. In spite of that he was able to work with Ted Kennedy to pass an education bill.
JRock, “If Obama loses, it’s because the country is racist.” No reasonabvly educated person would assert such a simplistic assessment. No liberal I know is dumb enough to think that way. It would not be because “the country is racist,” but that there are more whites (and latinos) that would vote against Obama because he is black then there are blacks and whites (and latinos) who would vote for him because he is black. It’s not so much about racism than it is about race itself. I’m not a big fan of Obama’s, but not because he’s black, but rather because he’s not liberal and progressive enough for me. I’m not a big fan of the Democrats in this case because they were stupid enough to throw an election, believing that America was ready for a black man or a woman with negatives through the roof.
On the other hand, when all is said and done, we may be better off with a split government from ’09-’2012. I’m still on the fence with this, but for a while I was convinced that we needed a sort of reverse – from all GOP to all Dem – in order to repair the damage of the last one-party state. Now, I’m coming to think that split government may well be what the country needs. McCain, whom I personally consider a little nuts, could end up being a good president like Clinton. Back in ’92, I was convinced Clinton was a sleazy technocrat, but in the end he turned out pretty well, even by my liberal and progressive standards. On the other hand, he was no FDR, not by a million miles.