Thursday, May 08, 2008

The politics of division on vivid display.

All rational and even vestigially objective persons understand that the entire modern Democrat agenda is based on division, as any one who heard any speech by Howard Dean, John Edwards or Hillary Clinton could readily attest. Every person is identified as a member of a group and their rights and obligations are determined by the group to which the person is assigned.

Politically the Democrat routine stock in trade has been to identify their constituencies as members of groups that are unfairly treated by American society, particularly Republicans. Identity politics is then tossed in a dressing of vinegar based victimization to produce the impractical and ultimately nihilistic liberal agenda.

The current Democrat primary provides the rare example of the Democrats’ almost complete dependence on division. Watch Donna Brazile and Paul Begala are really go at it.



Begala, who rarely forgoes the chance to personally attack opponents, labels those who have bought into the Drama as “eggheads and African-Americans”. Brazile, not surprisingly, immediately retorts that Evita’s descamisados are beer drinking illiterates.

You’ve heard it here before. Hatred is so much the essence of the modern American liberal that they even hate themselves.

8 comments:

Anonymous said...

Good example, but unfortunately it is not relagated to the Democratic Party. We saw much of it on the national scene when McCain became our nominee. We see much of it on a more localized level with party bigwigs and operatives calling the GOP faithful members RINOS or Religious Nuts. We are unfortunately as divided as ever and it appears permanently. The Democrats division is only temporary.

Anonymous said...

I still won't vote for that democrat McCain.

Anonymous said...

Me thinks thou dost protest too much, Sporer. As well as project your party's faults onto others.

Speaking of dividing people, have you noticed any Republicans dividing Christians from Muslims? Or dividing Blacks from Whites? or straights from gays?

It's only when someone points out the distance between rich and poor that you object to dividing the nation. The rest of the time, Repubs are all about dividing and conquering.

The Real Sporer said...

No, Anon, I haven't.

I have seen Islamic terrorists and teh "Islamic Street" and the education provided my the madrasa divide Muslims from all other religions and people.

I notice Democrats working carefully to divide whites from blacks.

As for homosexuals, are they not by definition dividing themselves from the rest of socieity.

Please, if you're going to argue with me don't be so simplistic.

Art A Layman said...

sporie:

Your condemnation of the "modern American liberal" as being full of hate would suggest that the modern American conservative is all about compassion and love, inclusion and equality. If that be the case I would like to welcome you, as a first class member of the liberal party.

Art A Layman said...

sporie:

As for homosexuals, are they not by definition dividing themselves from the rest of socieity.

Please, if you're going to argue with me don't be so simplistic.

Now try as I might I can't avoid the incongruity of those two statements.

The logical extension of your homosexual assertion would be that those heterosexuals that practice anal sex are dividing themselves from the rest of society. Those that practice oral sex might have a foot in two camps. Those who enjoy B&D or S&M and practice those sports surely then are not a part of the rest of society.

Perhaps we might even get to those who engage in sex for other than procreation as dividing themselves from the rest of society.

The implications of your assertion are without bounds. Soon those who are bald will be segmented, as better or worse than the rest of society (I know what your vote would be). Maybe those with excessively large penises should be divided out due to their capacity to inflict pain.

Your definition of the "rest of society" appears to belie the American notion of society.

If you are going to criticize someone for simplistic argument it would seem that you should not then make inane, simplistic assertions. Don't you think?

Anonymous said...

Gays want equal rights. Repubs want to change the constitution to prevent that. That's divisive, maybe hateful.

Hillary's recent racism is disgusting. She's sounding like those Repubs who called Obama "that boy" and who ran that racist NC ad against him. You do know what Clinton triangulation is all about, don't you? It's all about getting to be more like Repubs. She learned it from Bill.

Sorry, I forgot to sign the previous comment----Spotlight.

Anonymous said...

As far as I'm concerned Obama is a "boy". Anyone under the age of 50 is a "boy".

Labels

Amazon Bookstore