Personally Fship, all I hear from you with regards to Democrats is a handful of tired cliches . . . I hate it as well when Dems automatically assume they have 'the black vote' . . . . people are individuals as well as members of groups . . .
. . .
all in all, the 'group membership' idea is inadequate to describe people unless you go all the way up to the top group: members of the group of 'matter/animated/sentient beings' and even that is inadequate.
-Unless you are addressing differences in order to emelliorate problems that really exist as a result of real differences: (the people aren't necessarily different but differences create problems for people)
However, there is only one thing worse than rhetoric that divides people into groups without distinguishing reasons and real differences that the groups exhibit (because there really are different groups though the lines shift), and that is the rhetoric which unifies all under a false catagory for purposes obliterating real differences: 'one America' is correct, except that it obliterates the realities of the differences between people . . .
that would be no problem for me except the purpose to which it is being used . . . .it is used to overlook real differences
Luckily there are some who are willing to not love the false gleeming Idol of abstration and actually declare that there are real differences that demand to be acknowledged and are a part of what it means to all-live-together.
Just remember, the main strategy of Totalitarian systems is to attempt to oblterate differences and make people fit into the 'one', whatever that be: the 'volk', the 'party', the 'people', etc.
The converse is true as well, that if division is stressed in order to obliterate commonality for purposes of gain than I too object . . . unless the realities of one of those 'different' aspects of our culture is to the detriment of other parts of that whole . . . and, unfortunately, I think that that the real differences that drive us all apart can be handled better . . . but first they need to be acknowledged.
It is unfortunate that the balance twixt 'we are all one'
and "we should all act as if we cared about each other as if we were all one"
is in itself so divise and bitter . . . but at least the conflict, so far, is continual . . .
I think that that is good, when one side wins handily in that fight then it is timed to be afraid for our civilization
and unfortunately, the grip that the right has on all the media (with a few exceptions) is so strong, liberalism is so demonized that I truly fear that it may be a very one sided argument in the future . . .
BTW, it is odd that you mention the 'poor' vote being Democrat, because I think that the lower economic rung has probably been Republican for a long time . . . that is the 'working poor' seem to think that Bush is just one of them
Also BTW, I went from beng a rabid Conservative to a rabid socialist before I settled squarely on what I would call a Social-libertarian, economic-moderate-Liberal who cares about the notion of balance and cares about the health of Public Institutions such as Education, and health and the infrastructure . .. transportation beyond the automobiles etc etc
I also believe that completely unregulated business leads inherently towards abuse
just as complete state-operation and control leads to abuse
Wherre does that fit in the cliche fests: the notion of balance?
Probably not in any of the slander talking points huh?