Let us hope that this does mean the "end of the Democratic Party as we know it." And the end of the Republican party as it currently exists as well. It seems to be the strategy of each to frighten and divide, forcing Americans to choose between one of two extremes. Gerrymandering and our primary system have supported the selection of candidates beholden to the fringes of each party and unwilling to work together as most voters expect.
Ironically, while Americans complain about gridlock and the swamp, Congress is less inclined to work across the aisle than ever before. There is no incentive to keep an even keel, and instead the country swings back-and-forth like a pendulum as voters reject first one party and then the other. Not a bad deal for politicians--they are assured of power fifty-percent of the time, and all except moderates are secure in districts designed to insulate them against threat or need to compromise. The media, of course, loves this since no story is easier or more compelling than one that plays to their viewers own biases. The more biased the stories become, the greater the urgency to choose "sides," and that is good business considering that half of 300 million viewers is enough for any outlet.
More people withheld their votes in 2016 than either candidate actually earned during the election. The message to both parties was clear: most voters wanted none of the above--not syphilis, not the clap--most simply hoped that govt. would use a condom. Either put up a candidate more can support, or those votes remain on the table, available to the first party who figures this out. There is no other way for moderates to motivate change when both parties would nominate someone viewed as extreme or incompetent. Of course, partisans on both sides will, in turn, blame others for whichever disease we contract, but it was they who placed the options on the table. That they are so short-sighted that they fail to anticipate the return of the pendulum is astounding.
Trump was not elected by the Republican party I supported for forty years. He was elected specifically to disrupt that party. Divisive issues such as racism and gun control have existed for decades, but have only become a serious threat to dominant culture over the past few years. As a result of this win-at-all-costs environment, where Trump has insisted on becoming THE government, even such institutions such as the NRA, DOJ, CDC, etc. cannot be separated from his persona and are at risk of destruction along with his administration. Where the NRA once inspired the will to work across the aisles of Congress there is no longer any need. We are neatly divided into camps--both for and against-with most Congressman protected within well-gerrymandered districts. And, ironically, those who are not have become the most obvious targets during election years, further weakening any incentive to work together. And so control of government is decided by a few districts in only a few states, effectively removing most of the U.S. population from the decision making process whether they vote or not.
Respect and compromise has always been a necessary part of civil society. To retain stability over the long-term, conservatives must welcome moderately liberal allies, and vice versa. The alternative is disfunction of the sort that has extremists on both sides predicting war, pestilence and famine. Give me a break--it does not have to be that way. Nothing we face today approaches the difficulties Americans have surmounted in the past. Perhaps civil conversation would be a good place to begin.
