[detbuch]

Sorry, Saltheart, I veered off your thread topic. As to the end of the Republican party, I agree with what you said, and said very well, but I think there is still a good degree of vitality in the party as represented by a number of congresspeople and in the electorate at large. Ironically, that vitality is what so many are saying is causing the party's presumed demise. Essentially, what they are saying is if the party wishes to survive it must become more like the Democrat party. Wouldn't that actually be its end? There is no necessity for two parties which are different in name only. Wouldn't the requirement for more than one party be difference? Even more so, a fundamental difference. If the difference is merely minor, that already exists within parties. The Republican party is especially fractured now, between those who are truly different than Democrats, and those who I call Democrat lite.

Your post recognizes the true difference, but laments that the people no longer want what the party is founded on. I think that the people, to a great degree, "want" on the basis of rhetoric. In our society, actually essential needs are not a problem. How we get those needs satisfied is the rub. As you say, when government can fill those needs with less of our sweat equity, that is a magnet toward socialism. But for convenience, and with ignorance, we accept a poison pill that can be the downfall of our society. If our message is so weak and fearful of offending groups and merely appears to take away "needs" then we will lose. People admire courage. They admire honesty. And they are moved by higher purpose. If we cannot convince them that short term pleasures can lead to long term pain and destruction, how do we convince ourselves?