In Springfield, IL, the tomb of Abraham Lincoln stands in an old cemetary. A simple sign asks visitors to behave in a dignified manner out of respect for our martyred leader. The great man's spirit seems to hang over the place as surely as if he had been gunned down by an American-hating secessionist only weeks ago. He had successfully held our nation together, governing under the banner of a fledgling Republican party, which was fiercely opposed to any further extension of the abomination of slavery. Opposing forces, under the Confederate Battle Flag, started the war that cost more American lives than any other, seeking to split our nation apart.
So grateful was America that for decades thereafter, the Republican party dominated national politics. It would take a long dissertation to outline the evolution of the parties since that time. I'd rather not use GOOD and BAD labels here, explicit or implied, but I think anyone my age who pays much attention to the news has seen how often the two major parties traded positions on important issues, and would have seen that it was integration that motivated southern white Democrats to jump ship en masse and re-invent themselves as Republicans. The national Democratic party had shown that it would use any means necessary to enforce federal law, just as the national Republican party had a century before.
Strangely, we had, as we still have, Republicans who consider themselves good, solid Americans, not standing together and singing the Battle Hymn of the Republic, but standing under the confederate battle flag. The governor of Texas has openly, publicly endorsed secession from the Union.
Excuse me? Wasn't one Civil War enough? Governor, are you an admirer of Abraham Lincoln, or of John Wilkes Booth?
However much I have have disagreed with the majority of Republicans at times in my life, one thing I've always believed you could count on Republicans for was reasonably polite behavior. In a local televised political debate I attended in Ohio, it was the Democrat who broke the rules and interrupted. In the state where I was born, Kansas, Democrats were shadowed by the history of Quantrill's raiders in pre-Civil War days, and the more recent Tom Pendergast, whose thugs used guns and brass knuckles to assure big Democratic turnouts. During the unionization of cab drivers in my home town, it was the unionizers who turned over some cabs. The Republicans more or less calmly pointed out the inappropriateness of this approach, while Democrats quite animatedly railed against the company intransigence that triggered it, while somewhat less animatedly suggesting that the union stick to legal methods.
Republicans or Democrats may have been right or wrong, wise or foolish, at various times, depending on your views, but generally speaking, Democrats might behave like ladies and gentlemen, while Republicans just would. You could always count on a Republican to carry the flag, politely and with respect; the flag of the United States of America.
Recently some Republican leaders announced their plans to disrupt "town hall meetings." I'm not referring to people attending, participating, asking questions. People were sent to disrupt, to prevent, not encourage, discussion. Our elected representatives were shouted down, and peaceful participants were denied the opportunity to ask relevant questions. You know about Congressman Wilson of South Carolina, who shouted an insult at President Obama during his address just last week. That same miserable specimen has a history of calling anyone who disagrees with him an "America hater." I propose to you that it is Joe Wilson who hates America and democratic process, and that it speaks very poorly of his party that he has not been excommunicated long ago. (Predictably, be loves the Confederate flag.)
Anyone who long ago gave up on the Republican party may believe this is not his or her problem. I disagree. For better or worse, we have a winner-take-all system. It would be not impossible, but extremely difficult, to begin a viable third party, or a fourth and fifth, which could introduce more innovation into our political repertoire. But it would not be too difficult for our two party system to become a one-party system; I don't believe that would benefit our nation.
Further, it would be easier than most of us like to think for peaceful dissent to be replaced by social breakdown. That's always very costly. In a heavily armed population, it would be a catastrophy.
If you have differing views on this, which you can express without name calling or threatening my life, I'd like to hear them! Of course you're welcome to comment if you agree as well.