That was a good reply Finny. I was using the dictionary definition of hegemony. I find it unfortunate that we’re stuck with what is in effect a one party system of government.
While the two factions of the uniparty spend a lot of time and resources yelling and screaming at each other, you notice that the policies of the factions just aren’t all that different. If your underlying belief is that the scope and role of government should be expanded, this isn’t going to bother you much. If you believe the opposite, then you’re pretty much shut out.
While conservative candidates had something of a good run in 2010 and 2011, I think the leadership of both factions of the uniparty are resolved to stamp out conservatism as best they can.
I find it unfortunate that we’re stuck with what is in effect a one party system of government.
I think it's hugely and sadly naïve to think that the GOP will change enough to nominate a limited government conservative in 2016. That's about as likely as me winning $millions in the Lotto. Maybe even less likely. I am very, very sad to say it as I have voted straight Republican ticket for nearly 40 years; that ended in 2012, when I voted third party (FOR a plurality) rather than FOR making liberalism more powerful in both parties (what every vote for Romney/"against" Obama was FOR).
There is probably only ONE civil, peaceful way out of this via the ballot box, and:
1. If it happens, will happen whether we like it or not
2. It will seem far too risky for conventional thinkers, although the alternative, of voting for a Romney/Christie-type Republican for president in order to block a more liberal Democrat from taking the White House, entails absolutely ZERO risk, none whatsoever. ZERO risk, ZILCH risk, in electing a Romney/Christie -- America is guaranteed more and bigger government with opposition devastated in the only party poised to fight government expansion. Risk is the price you pay for opportunity. There is ZERO risk in running a leftist/statist Uniparty Republican, thus ZERO opportunity for restoring limited government and Christian morality to the USA.
3. The one peaceful way out of it will have the potential of uniting more Americans from across the political spectrum than anything American politics has seen in a very long time, because today's Democrats and Republicans and Independents are mostly opposed to abortion, opposed to the homosexual agenda, opposed to nationalized health care, opposed to freeloading slobs living on welfare and VOTING for more of it, opposed to government's presumption in enforcing what it views as "morality" (gay "rights" and charitable "welfare" are just two examples) and opposed to anti-2nd Amendment efforts. MOST AMERICANS, Democrats and Republicans, object to most or all of those things; they just blame the other party for exacerbating them. They vote for their own candidate not because they want him, but because they fear the other party's candidate will be worse.
We don't need a Third Party. We need a 2nd Party to represent all those Americans. Without one -- things will continue to avalanche toward tyranny regardless of which branch of the Uniparty wins the White House.
If we lack the guts to back a limited-government politician who declares so-called "third party," then we forfeit any and all opportunity to save ourselves. NO GUTS, NO GLORY.