I have been scrolling through the comments as I am writing this response. Unfortunately, it would take days to address all of comments made, so I have focused on the most prominent. I appreciate all of the comments made, all of the points of view expressed, and everything that you all have given me to think about. I truly do.
As I have seen the Republican Party shift farther to the right, embracing religious (Christian) fundamentalism, discrediting, discouraging, and dismissing opposing ideas and beliefs, I have moved much closer to the Democratic Party. It has become apparent to me that the Republican Party has become a separating party of US and THEM, whereas the Democratic Party is a more inclusive party of WE.
I have always thought that our democratic republic was founded on the premise of “Rule by the majority with consideration of the minority”. In a broader sense, I have interpreted this as meaning that, as a society, the prevailing ideas and philosophies set the course, but the policies that they inspire cannot be harmful to and must include the minorities. I am not just referring to racial minorities, but to the religious, sexual, political, cultural, etc., also.
On a micro level, I see the inner strife of the Democratic Party, with all of the infighting, finger pointing, blame laying, and “I told you so”s. This is the biggest problem. Regardless of one’s political identity or party affiliation, there will always be disagreement. However, I believe that there is much more agreement on the big stuff, the basic foundation of what the party stands for, at least there should be. Many of the arguments made or ideas expressed by your responses are in the details. Some are big, some are small. Some are procedural, while others are tactical and strategic. This is an indication of the broad spectrum on individuals that the Democratic Party attracts. It is an indication of the different shades of blue that compose this end of the political spectrum. This diversity can be a strength, if we choose to use it for inclusion and a hindrance if we use it for division. No one has all the answers. No one has had every possible experience. We need to use this diversity to find the best common path toward the betterment of society, not as a means for individual or sectional dominance. Most of the disagreement is not on the destination, but on the route to travel, and some are throwing punches over who gets to drive the bus. Disagreement can be a good thing if it is used to find compromise to move in a forward direction.
We can and should do a post mortem of Hilary Clinton’s presidential campaign, but there will come a time when we need to stop beating a dead horse, and implement what we have learned. This is the time when we need the diversity that the party offers to give differing ideas and points of view. Personally, I am not enthralled by Hillary and would have preferred Bernie, but I did vote for her. I own my vote. I voted for everything that I did like about her stances on the issues and I voted for her positions that I did not agree with. I voted for a package. I could not give her half or a partial vote. This is what I mean by own your vote.
The campaign could have been different. I think that all of the “Go to Hillary.com and look it up.” statements were as useful as telling someone to use a dictionary when they do not know how to spell a word. The opposition spewed forth incoherent statements, but they had some vague information. True of false, the information was much more easily grasped. It required very little effort to assimilate. I took it upon myself to educate those around me about the differences in platform, policy, and character of the candidates and the impacts these differing positions would have on society. The big media will always report on the official campaign. Maybe we need to take it upon ourselves to campaign on behalf of our chosen candidate. Our chosen candidate may not be our ideal candidate, but he/she should be the best viable candidate. He/She should be the candidate that is in the best interest of not only ourselves, but the best for our country and society, as well as having a realistic chance to be elected.
I appreciate your comments about my third point: “Realize that the Democratic Party has very little chance to reach the “Uneducated Voter”, the “White, Rural American”, and the White Supremacist. I have thought about this long and hard. Logic, reason, and knowledge will never be able to overshadow chosen ignorance, religious reason, religious misdirection, or ideas of racial superiority. People who put their god before their nation, instead of their god with and for the good of their nation, can never be reached.”
Volumes could be written on each of these alone. That was why I wrote in broad terms. I could have been more succinct and I tried to refine the subsets of these groups which I was referring to. It can be summed up with the phrase “One can lead a horse to water, but one cannot make it drink.” People will not hear what they do not want to hear. People who are blissfully ignorant will not risk discomfort caused by obtaining knowledge and questioning their own thinking. Some people truly want to know the truths. Some people see discomfort as a learning experience as they grow. Some people are not afraid to move outside of their comfort zones if it means making educated decisions, casting informed votes, and working for a better society, country, and world. Unfortunately, this is not a majority of these groups, at the present time.
Once again, I appreciate your input and ideas. As with anything I encounter in life, I try to learn, gain understanding, and broaden my knowledge. Everything that I have learned about the last election has reinforced many of my beliefs helped me find a direction to travel as I do my part to promote a better, diverse, and inclusive society.