Actually though, contempt works just fine, just ask the “millionaires and billionaires”, the people that didn’t “build that”, the “religious right” and the “bitter clingers”. After all, you are supposed to vote for “revenge”, right?

You can win elections doing this if the numbers of the groups you despise are small or they can be prevented from voting. And Republicans have generally been able to do so since about 1972.

This will simply no longer be the case in the future, and the fortunes of our politics will change with this shift. If the Republican Party does not acknowledge and adapt to this, it will die on the vine.

This is not a matter of views, particularly. It is a matter of the personal attitude you take toward those you disagree with. For example, Latinos here are largely Catholic, and often very devout. Anyone who approaches them with respect and tries to persuade them of the value of Christian Conservatism, has a fairly good chance of really being listened to.

Do you know of anyone actually doing this? I don’t. As long as you keep thinking of them as the contemptible product of immigration and contraception, you will never be in a position to persuade anyone of anything.

There is no longer any real market for contempt of others, no matter if you think of them as “dependent” or anything else. If that is all you offer for sale, you will go begging. Those who have made their fortunes from it, the Rush Limbaughs, the Ann Coulters, and the Glenn Becks, have exhausted the major vein in the mine.

As much as I disagree with most of it, it would be a shame if the conservative point of view withered away merely because those who hold it haven’t sufficient subtlety or sufficient sense to understand the old wisdom that you will attract more with honey than with vinegar.

This is how I would rephrase this:

We are simply not going to be the same country that we were in the 20th century. Dependency is now a fact, and it is the future, an agenda. There will be no “majorities”, Slient or otherwise. There will be only constituencies.”

If “diversity” is a fact, it has been engineered, through immigration and contraception-but what really has been engineered is dependency.

If you want to see other dimensions of the electorate-look at college students-Obama’s lead is something like 30%. You scrimp and save to send your kid to college-and even with titantic efforts-your kid is likely to emerge with six-figure debt-so that the professiorate can delegate teaching to graduate assistants. If your kid decides to study an apolitical field (engineering, IT), he or she will be required to take copious amounts of things like sociology, psychology and other notorious left of center-fields with the idea of making them “well-rounded”-even though that rounding might not include the math skills necessary to make change.

For four years the entire academy is devoted to finishing the job the primary and secondary schools have done for 12 years. Your child will be force-fed and enculturated with statism, libertinism, secularism, atheism-the entire pantheon of the left and its sophistries. Of course, when they emerge, especially now, where teen unemployment has been historically high, they will have no idea that their boss expects them to show up (on time) and shut up and do tasks their professors told them they were above doing.

In short, while you thought they were getting job-securing training, they missed out on the more rudimentary aspects of working that can only be received through employment. So they think they know everything, have passions that are easily inflamed and are conditioned to listen to the piper’s call

When the government says legitimate dependence on parents extends to age 26, you are easy prey for the statists.

Then there’s another group that will no doubt vote for Obama; “single (unwed) mothers”. Nationally, it was just revealed that 40% of births are to unwed women. My mildly religious, but responsible cousin has two kids “living in sin”. Her daughter is one of the 40% and flat out told her marriage is out of the question due to the loss of government freebies.

They look to the government as an ersatz husband and statists are eager to dangle shiny baubles in front of them. The EITC, subsidized day care, food stamps, housing. Who do you think these women are voting for? Why do you think the left attacks marriage?

Obama has done everything to instutionalize dependency for a very good reason.

But that’s ok its not like the Democrats support any profit centered mega machine dedicated to the destruction of the poor…

Seriously, Democrats are politicians. How you can say that somehow they alone have the true ways of Fairness and Love of the Underprivileged and the Oppressed is beyond me. Especially in an age when the party has sold its soul to Planned Parenthood, which has its effective goals the destruction of sexual morality as well as our children and the reduction of the ranks of the poor and minorities. Keeping government programs going only does so much, you know.

Sorry, venting my spleen.

In either case, somebody has some work to do in the future beyond merely asserting national color-blindness.

This is very true. In the 20th century we had far more kids and workers than retirees and the government could easily raise as much money as it wanted without impeding the real economy.

The 21st century is not going to be like that.

Skin color is not the demographic change that matters.