Saturday, December 15, 2012

Jeffersonians Must Present Concrete Distinctions

The question of "third or new" political parties has again surfaced.

There are thousands who predict that the Republican Party will "go the way of the Whig Party." But, if they do, what would replace them? And if the states embark upon a "peaceful separation," what would be the draw to gain support; other than disenchantment with Barack Obama? In short, "how" would secessionists convince those unhappy with present day America that theirs was the better option?

Entering the "Jeffersonians."

In a previous post some specifics were unveiled. The primary groups composing the new party were identified. "Constitutionalist Republicans, John F. Kennedy Democrats and Libertarians" account for a large part of the country. Most feel that they are the "odd men out.". However, in hammering our a platform, there must be more substance. Simply being disgruntled Republicans or Democrats isn't enough. What would make the Jeffersonians a viable alternative?

Two proposed  additions to the Constitution, "Perfect Society and the "E" Amendment" would chart a long range course. There include commonalities that all three factions can wrap their arms around! But what about now?  How are the immediate questions addressed?

Can we find common ground on issues such as Tax Reform, Health Care, Clean Air and Water, Banking, Defense, Immigration, Globalism versus Protectionism, Energy, Foreign Affairs, Faith versus Secularism, Gay Rights and the Second Amendment? And, if so, what are they?

Let's return to our constituency. Evaluate the three groups. Then, think about the spiritual founder, Thomas Jefferson. Where would he stand on these issues?

The next step is deciding "where the most votes are" regarding every one of these questions!

Let's start with perhaps most downtrodden segment of our population in recent times: "Single heterosexual fathers." Has anyone noticed the raw deals that "Dads" ofter get in a custody cases? Most people are aware of it. Yet, there looms the prevailing paradigm:  "Is it right to take children away from the mother?" Unfortunately equal rights is a double edged sword!

The Civil Right Act of 1968 placed women on the protected list. And, for good reason!  Flagrant exhibitions of discrimination based on gender were rampant in America. General logic surmised "women shouldn't be hired for management positions because "they are too emotional." Rationalization typically reflected the much used chauvinist excuse of , "what if she gets pregnant?The business can't go on hold, waiting for her to punch out a kid!"

Since that verdict, things have changed. Women have made huge advancements in the work place. However, a pre-1968 axiom has changed little. Women are still considered to be the most essential caretakers of children.

Some sympathetic men maintained their conclusion that, "you couldn't really take small children away from their mother, even if she wasn't that great of a parent and the father was a decidedly better one." Yet, growing numbers of single fathers are asking, "why?" As in, "why is it a general assumption that the mother is entitled to automatic custodial parent privileges? Do not equal rights apply?" 

Most Americans today, Republican and Democrat believe that women should have equal access to an education, profession, opportunities for advancement in management and income. However, shouldn't single Dads enter a court room on a "level playing field" when facing a custody battle?

Adding "single heterosexual fathers" to the protected list specified by the Civil Rights Act of 1968. would be a defining position, differentiating Jeffersonians  from Republicans and Democrats. True, the more liberal Democrats who advocate Gay Marriage would be offended. And, it's probable that the most staunchly conservative Republicans would oppose the addition on "philosophical grounds."

Such a measure would be both non-partisan and non racial. Uniting a core segment of the population around a common concern is the first step toward solidifying a constituency. Even men who have never married or have had children would be drawn to the Jeffersonians, on this one issue!

The marriage rate has dropped alarmingly since 1980. Men are simply not wanting to marry. They see little incentive. If they have children, their wife can take them at a whim along with any estate that they might have accumulated. Women are perceived to be more "angry" these days. In some instances they complain that they are "tired or bored" with their husbands and consequently divorce them on those grounds! The proposed alteration of the Civil Rights Act of 1968 could impact this trend!

Republicans hold the advantage with men nationwide. Democrats hold the advantage with women, especially younger women and gays. It is doubtful that Jeffersonians would lose many Republican voter if single, heterosexual fathers were added to the protected list. However, it is definite that they would pick up minorities, especially black males! And this must be an objective for the Jeffersonians!

There are other distinctions to be reviewed in future posts.

The key consideration is gently coaxing good people away from the poisons of Obama's Marxism. It won't happen through the Republican party! And it won't come about merely from a promise of tax cuts! There must be substance, meaning and a vision of something better and more inclusive.

No comments:

Post a Comment