Why 2012 is The Last Real Election and the End for Two Political Parties

No, the election of 2012 is not going to be the last election because of the end of the world, Mayan style, December 21, 2012.

Rather, it is because the national referendum on the role of government in lives is over.  The era of Big Government, proclaimed dead by Bill Clinton, was just hibernating.   The majority of people no longer agree with "founding principles" of limited government, or Federalism.

Those who are now the winners, including President Obama, have a big responsibility.  They somehow have to keep all the promises made to various niche groups while keeping the the city, state and nation viable.

This will be an ever increasingly hard task, because the basis of the governing of the Democrat Party is transfer payments, and there is less and less to transfer.  No matter if Warren Buffet gave up all his income and revenue for a year, it is not enough to fund even a week of entitlements now promised and expected by the majority of the population.

So goes Illinois, so goes the nation.

Illinois has been a solid Democrat  Party state for the last fifty years, with Republicans providing the loyal opposition, and Illinois today?   It is what it is.

History was made last night.  Not because a man of mixed race was re-elected (Does this end racism?), but because one major party, The Republican,  and one minor party, Libertarians, were destroyed.

For good.

There is one party now, the Democrats.

One party nation states should scare people, but it does not.  Not yet.

Enjoy your victory.  Collect what you can.  Debase further the rule of law for the rule of man.

Let us see how long happy days being here again can last.

 

 

 

Filed under: Uncategorized

Comments

Leave a comment
  • It may be true the Democratic party has an Electoral College advantage, but the Republican party has a strong advantage to retain the House of Representatives for years to come. It'll be easier for the GOP to win the WH than it will for the Dems to win the House.

  • In reply to Jimmy Greenfield:

    Jimmy, time will tell.

    The Republican message, as much as it pains me to say this, is not the message of the majority of the country. In my mind this is now a "Progressive" country, where individual effort, Federalism and self-sacrifice do not matter.

    The fairest thing to do would be to have a Constitutional convention and rewrite it to the wants and desires of the current time. That way, there would be no mistaking the type of nation the majority wants going forward.

    Better to know what you're living under, than not.

  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    Richard: I do not believe it's an either/or. A vote for Obama doesn't mean self-sacrifice doesn't matter. I think, respectfully, that is your mistake and the mistake of many in the Republican Party. I am not dependent on government. The government is dependent on me-- it takes far more money from me in taxes, than it gives back in taxes breaks and services. Yet I voted for Obama. And I'm not the only one.

    I am for fiscal responsibility-- but to get there, it is my belief Republicans need to come to the table and compromise, rather than say its our way or the highway. If we are a country divided 50-50 (or 50-49), then all parties must throw in ideas and we select the best ideas from both parties. In my mind, the reelection was partially a referendum on goverance by filibuster.

    An example: health care. In 2009, the GOP said it agreed with 80% of the health care bill. Then, rather than coming together to either bang out the other 20% or at least pass the 80% everyone agreed upon, it made a decision to not give Obama a victory on healthcare. The same way the GOP decided not to give Clinton a victory on healthcare in 1993. Not because it didn't need to get done or ther wasn't room for compromise, but because they didn't want Clinton to have the victory.

    So if you continue to care about the country, you can't just give up. But, none of us can look at anything as an "either/or" The country expects the parties to work together. And that's what we have to start doing.

  • In reply to Brian C. Thomas:

    Brian, thank you for a reasoned response.

    However, there is only talk of compromise in the frame of Republicans caving in their principles. For instance, fundamentally, the government incursion into health care is not a matter of 80 20. It is a matter of either/or.

    I well remember the summit Obama had with the Republicans regarding health care. Congressman Ryan pointed out in a respectable way that the numbers did not work. Obama's response: "I won". So much for compromise.

    Obama is a man who said he would have the most transparent administration in history, and never have lobbyists gain access to influence. What we have gotten is Fast and Furious and now Bengazi, and lobbyists having incredible influence in the Obama administration from the beginning. He is also quite in the pocket of the very Wall Street people he vilifies. I can go on, but it is pointless.

    As far as your independence from government, I laud that. You are like so many others, but also unlike a growing number of Americans. More and more Americans are now receiving benefits from the government, and a growing number of large corporate concerns are receiving cash grants or favored status from the very man who railed against such actions when it came to Bush and Chaney et al. How do you reconcile that? Does not the Solyndra and other "green" fiscal disasters mean anything to the Obama voter?

    No matter, this was a watershed election, because it is obvious that Americans want a bigger and more intrusive government. So be it.

    I understand when it is time to fold. There are other battles to fight, and it is very hard to convince people --rich and poor-- who are receiving an ever-growing amount of tax money from you and me, that it might not be the best thing to do for the country and even for themselves.

    The people have spoken, and they want something different that what I and the Founders believe. That is life.

    Thanks again for your comment.

  • Where has "the rule of law" been debased by the Democratic party?
    Have you forgotten preemptive wars, imaginary weapons of mass destruction, water boarding, and renditions?

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    Aquinas, you are too far gone to see the forest through the trees when it comes to politics. You will defend any Democrat in regard to any offense.

    I throw in the towel. This country has become a country that takes more than it makes as a majority. You have won. I hope your grandchildren will somehow be able to free themselves from the ever increasing debt and ever increasing police state (started by Bush and grown tremendously by Obama).

  • In reply to Richard Davis:

    Richard, you didn't answer my question, except perhaps indirectly with your Bush reference.

    That towel you're throwing in? It sounds like it's saturated with tears. You're a good Conservative. I respect your conviction. But your party as it is constituted today is no longer relevant to the human values of our country, to geopolitics in general, and to Planet Earth.

  • In reply to Aquinas wired:

    Aquinas, you take every point made and try a counterpoint, but the only problem with this approach to me is that I am not a Republican but a Conservative. GWB was not my idea of a good politician and maybe not even a good man, when it came to certain things. He certainly broke the rule of law many times.

    However, Obama is just as guilty. Maybe more. He has launched drone attacks across the world; he is waging another war in Pakistan; his administration is responsible for the deaths of hundreds -- maybe thousands-- of Mexicans through the Fast and Furious program of gun running. I could go on, but you do not recognize any wrong in the man or the party, so why have this pointless argument with you?

    I can agree with you on your point that conservative values -- not Republican values-- are no longer what the majority of people want in this country, certainly.

    The mandate is clear for more government involvement (control) in the daily lives of people, for increased taxes, and for the parsing of national resources to the victim de jour.

    What I find troubling and perhaps you do not, is that every action, big and small, has to have a political motive attached. When it comes down to the central government deciding the type of toilet you must have in your house and the type of light bulb, then I ask, where does it stop? The toilets now take two flushes instead of one, thus wasting more water; and the light bulbs are a toxic mercury hazard. Also, is it necessary in your mind to have a Mayor Bloomberg decreeing that 32oz of soda be outlawed, only to have people buy two 16oz cups? Can't a person take an individual decision.

    With ObamaCare, every potential human action can become a political debate, as one person's actions will now be seen to be effecting the the share another gets from the treasure of the country.

    I am actually a person more in love and in tune with the arts, and have ventured into the arena of politics because I see a future where politics will be everything. It's like literature. Consider the cumbersome and heavy political books of Jon Dos Passos. (sp?) in contrast to the books of Fitzgerald or Hemmingway or Cather. His books were boorish and boring, because the emphasis was always on the political, where the others may have intermixed politics but never lost track of their characters as individuals.

    In the new world order, everybody has to be shunted into a group which then purports to speak for the individual.

    Like any attempts to build a utopia on earth, the progressive and collectivist one will fail and fail horribly, and, in the end, the central rulers will turn into despots who will be very dangerous indeed.

    But I'm done talking politics with you, Aquinas, because you are not intellectually honest about Democrats and progressives and the lot. They do no wrong, and if they did, you would not cite them for it.

  • The problem with the Republican party is that they have no clear message. They are hijacked by everyone who comes along -- from the Tea Party, to big business, to evangelical Christians. They defeated themselves in this election by making no clear response to the economy, or anything -- just a bunch of radical views about rape babies and the whole birther thing. Another party will rise, just like the Tea Party and Occupy. But, this time the Republicans will not be there to absorb and pander to them -- because they have destroyed themselves.

  • In reply to Dan Bradley:

    Also -- you may not have noticed, but this country is pretty big. One of the bigger ones, in fact. And there are a lot of people. So goes the government..

  • In reply to Dan Bradley:

    Dan, no of course I have not noticed how big this country is, because I am a small-minded conservative. Do you hear how accusatory you sound? Probably not.

    Yes, the government will go the way of the majority or the mob, but mobs usually end up destroying things around them.

  • In reply to Dan Bradley:

    Dan, the Republican party did have a clear message, but it is one that does not resonate with the majority of the population anymore. That message is one of fiscal responsibility, smaller government, individual rights and strong national defense. This is kind of the traditional American message.

    The "birther" thing and the "rape" thing were nowhere on Romney's platform or talking points, but were projected onto Romeny and Republicans -- successfully, I might add-- by a President who had no record to run on but more of the same.

    As for Democrat Party specifics, Obama's specifics, I am still waiting, as is the rest of the country, for those to be outlined for his second term.

    What this is is a turning point in history. This is now a country with a majority that is wanting bigger and more intrusive government. There is no point in pandering to that by the Republicans or any other party, if they want to be a distinct party.

    The party that is hijacked by every special interest group out there is actually the Democrats. Eventually, in building this utopia, the factions of the Democrats will come into opposition with each other, because they will all be seeking control and a bigger slice of a decreasing economic pie.

Leave a comment