The Politics Of Divisiveness

There was a time when the only viable politics in America was racist political rhetoric, bent on promoting white supremacy, especially in the southern states. In reaction to the obvious injustice of this condition, the Democratic party found it to be politically expedient to promote African-American favoritism as a staple of their political platform. It got a lot of white politicians elected and re-elected over the last several decades, while they posed as Liberal, free-thinking politicians, who were characterized as having a heart, as opposed to their opponents, who were logically considered heartless bigots, and racists. Now we are in danger of going full circle into a reverse-racist political quagmire, that could be just as dangerous for our country as a Neo-Nazi, white supremacist take-over of the federal government.

The problem for our country is not white racism, against black Americans, or the reverse (black racism against white Americans, with other races choosing up sides, whichever way they prefer to go). The deeper problem is the whole concept of political divisiveness. We as a nation seem to have forgotten that the concept of Unity is the only thing that kept this country strong through times of great hardship, and struggle. We got along well enough for the first 80 some-odd years, confining our racism to the southern states, until the injustice of it rose up to the point where we were willing to risk the destruction of our Union in order to legally abolish it. And we came very close to destroying that Union in the process.

Afterwards, we struggled through more than 100 years of unofficial racism in the southern states (primarily, but not exclusively), which was supported, paradoxically, by the Democratic party. Then the Democrats decided that supporting legitimate welfare for the downtrodden blacks was politically expedient, and that white politicians who supported these efforts could get re-elected repeatedly by doing so. Eventually, these legitimate welfare concerns became a corrupt obsession, and any democrat who wished to get elected to a powerful position simply ran on the platform of giving more taxpayers' money to "the poor", which the black population accepted as a welcome bailout, in place of decades of discriminatory hiring practices in the general economy. By now it has degenerated to the point where many black Americans feel they are owed a living (albeit a small subsistence one at best), simply because they exist, and the only alternative is some form of illegal activity, like drug sales, or prostitution, etc. The occasional black American who recognizes that the best way to climb out of poverty is through educational excellence and successful competition in the free market economy, (like Dr. Ben Carson), is the rare exception. Not because they can't do it, but because our Welfare-State government has made it easier to just ride with the system, or try and cheat against it, often with disastrous results. That's the real reason there is such a disproportionate level of black prisoners in jail, not so much because of continued racial discrimination in the criminal justice system. I've even heard blacks complain that when they were in school they were "A- students" in the early years, until they were bullied into accepting the role of the "under-achiever" by their black friends, who pressured them into fitting into the stereotype rather then be ridiculed as an "Uncle Tom", or a geek, or something. Media advertisements were insufficient to keep them from living out the axiom, "a mind is a terrible thing to waste!"

Now we have a sitting black President who would seem to be the antithesis of the above (a Harvard educated Constitutional Lawyer), who seems bent on destroying our Constitutional form of government. What an embarrassment to have the President of the greatest Christian nation the world has ever known visit an African nation that is probably less than 200 years from Pagan domination (Kenya) try to lecture them on the morality of equal treatment of Homosexuals in their judicial system! The response was polite resentment, as it should have been! One has to wonder if he studied voluntary lunacy, and stupidity at Harvard rather than Constitutional Law. Or perhaps the curriculum at Harvard just tends to point in that direction to the willing student. Perhaps their idea of Constitutional Law involves teaching how to destroy the law, rather than how to administer it. I think the lunacy, and stupidity aspect must come naturally from too much association with other like-minded students, before and after graduation. Et tu, Bill and Hillary???