The Democrat National Convention

.
I am not as much of an idealist as I used to be in my younger days!  But if you're reading this, I would imagine that you're still an idealist, possibly in a small way.  That's the only way to remain alive: to hope that things can be better, and that they will come in our lifetimes.

Looking at the Republican Convention, one had to despair.  It was as though they had identified Barack Obama and all the Democrats as public enemies, and were determined to proceed in the direction they had chosen for all of us, without us, if necessary.  I can only imagine that many Republicans were deeply disappointed in their own party, simply from the tone of the speeches, and the mood of the audience.  Truly they had chosen from the very dregs to represent them at that Convention; there was little to admire.

In contrast, what a positive mood has pervaded that wonderful first night at the Democratic Convention!  Of course Mrs Obama was eloquent.  One has to expect that.  But the ideas were so unflinchingly positive; she was so determinedly gracious in her tone, that I have to think that some Republicans must have dearly wished they had that caliber of person in their ranks, to uplift them at the most pivotal meeting of the party.

But the GOP, and its various splinter groups, glare at the Democrats, sneering at us saying that our speeches are empty rhetoric, our goals are pie in the sky, our positive tone based on a fool's paradise that cannot be practically realized.  They portray themselves as throwing their shoulders to the yoke, to drag us stubborn dreamers back from out of some ditch of their imagining, onto the straight highway they believe we must take: the highway of reduced spending, reduced taxes, hardship of the poor, and self-reliance for all: both for those with great resources, and for those with none.

They imagine that, at an individual level, they can extend a hand of assistance to people, but that it is wrong for the government to be committed to reaching out an organized helping hand.  So it is all right for church groups, for instance, to go out to New Orleans and help clean up, but the Government cannot afford to be helping such vast numbers of people.  A wealthy family can adopt a poor family, and help them in any way they can, but the government should not be adopting all the poor throughout the land.

It is a basic difference of vision.  This is why the GOP is firm about Immigration: they do not want it at all.  We just cannot house all the poor and indigent, they feel, that find their way here from south of the border.  They will kill if they have to, to prevent this leak of our boundaries.

But despite that fundamental difference of vision, we cannot reject the entire party, even when we reject their vision.  The main reason we cannot reject the party en masse is simply because when the elections are over, legislation must be put forward with both parties working together, unless the GOP were to cease being a party of any importance.

I shall stop here; it seems too dismal a prospect to contemplate a landscape so changed that the GOP ceases to be the leading party of the conservatives, and that function is taken over by some groups such as the Tea Party.  This has happened in some countries such as Germany, where neo-Nazis have taken the reins of the conservatives.  I see no point in speculating in that direction until and unless that happens.

A.