Legislating Morality

Alright, in light of the recent "Thumping" the GOP received yesterday, I have a few political thoughts to get off of my chest! As it has been a while, this will be a long post.

First: When did the Democrats become the party of the African Americans? Seems to me that any student of history would have to conclude that it is in fact the Republicans who have done the most good for that demographic. What do I mean? Let's take a stroll down memory lane:

1860's: The civil war is raging. The moral in the North is very low. One political party believes it can take back the White House from the "warmonger" Abraham Lincoln due to the heavy losses by the Union army in what was supposed to be a "quick" war to suppress a "rebellion." This party is fine allowing the South to own slaves. This pary uses peace as it's platform explaining that slavery is completely acceptable. Do we all remember that Lincoln was a Republican? The Democrats were fine allowing the then Africans to remain in chains.

1960's: One hundred years later and the civil rights movement is at the forefront of political debate. In Southern states, agian, the Democratic platform is one of segregation, "separate but equal" is their way of circumventing a supreme court decision.

1990: Suddenly, Bill Clinton is an honorary African American. The Democrat's represent the "black voice" in government. What happened?! I've a controvercial theory (Would you expect anything less from me?). I submit that the agenda of the Democratic party as a whole has changed very little. Though social programs and affirmative action (etc) they are giving minority demographics what they think they "need" rather than what they truely do need. By doing this, the government can exercise a very real control over them. Because the gov't hands them what they need, they are forced to rely on the gov't rather than rely on their own abilities. Minorities need the opportunity to break the cycle in which they continually find themselves in, they don't need the gov't spoon feeding them. The problem that I see is that we forget that the roll of gov't is to offer equal opportunity, not equal results.

Second: A favorite mantra of the liberal left is "you can't legislate morality." Well, my question to them is, what can you legislate? Aren't laws simlpy rules that are to guide the behavior of indiviuals so that society can be sustained? Sounds a lot like morality to me. Let's see, if morality can't be legislated the following laws must imidiatly be abolished: Any law against: Murder, slavery, theft, assalt, business monopolies, child pornography, rape, and drinking and driving. Also, we have to remove any laws about obeying the law. The choice to drive the speed limit is a moral choice. If you can't legislate morality there's no need for laws at all.

Third: The "Thumping." So, the Democrats have taken over control of the House. (If anyone wasn't frightened enough by the horror films that came out around Halloween, here's something to give you nightmares: Nancy Pelosi is third in line for the Presidency! (Insert image of "The Scream" here.)) And depending on what Leiberman does, it will basically be 50-50 in the Senate. Ok, I'm all for the balance of power in gov't. I see it as the least possible evil. Followed closely by an all GOP gov't and then an all Dem gov't.

Here is what bugs me. This was entirely based on the Iraq war. And in the future I foresee a well planned bait and switch. "You elected us to set a time table for Iraq and put more pressure on that nation to rule themselves. Oh, we are also going to legalize gay marriage, raise the minimum wage, roll back the tax cuts, and spend spend spend. What? We didn't mention that in our one-issue campaigns? Well, you should have seen that coming. It's always been in the cards, it comes with the territory, and all of those other wonderful cliches."

Actually, I kinda hope they do try lots of extreme leftist things. It will make it easier for the Republican's to keep the White House.

Finally, I hope that Joseph Leiberman thumbs his nose at the Democrats by remaining independant. It would serve them right for supporting a different candidate in his state, causing him to lose the Democratic primary and run as an independant. The Democrats lost a Senate seat in CT and I love it.

So there you go. It's been a while, hope this gives you something to chew on, spelling mistakes and all. Don't forget, it's all just my opinion.