A question for those who think the Democrats and Republicans are both the same.

Politics & Elections
21

Not really. Democrats widely applauded the Supreme Court decision, and had liberalized gay marriage laws in some dozen or so states before that. While Republicans vowed to find some way around the ruling because it was the work of the devil, or something.

I haven’t really been following the ups and downs of the food stamp issue closely, but a quick glance at stories like these makes it hard to believe that Republicans are the champions of the downtrodden:

Congress is set to approve $9 billion in cuts to the food stamp program even as a record number of Americans live in poverty.

Republicans Are Trying to Take Food Out of My Mouth

Wisconsin Republicans Don’t Want Food Stamp Recipients Buying Beans, Potatoes, Pasta Sauce

Oklahoma GOP apologizes for post comparing food stamp recipients to animals

And don’t get me started on Republican-dominated states rejecting federal Medicaid expansion.

That I agree with.

WRT to the OP, here’s how I’d sum it up in a nutshell, with reference to the last decade or two:

[ul]
[li]Democrats pretend to embrace social principles and to represent the interests of the middle class and the economically disadvantaged. Every once in a while they surprise everyone by actually doing so, but mostly they cave to corporate interests in order to survive politically, thus benefiting primarily the wealthy.[/li][/ul]

[ul]
[li]Republicans are the appointed servants to corporate interests and unfettered pure capitalism. They spin a mythology on behalf of their masters that says this will unequivocally always be good for everyone. Much more often, however, it just widens the income gap between the rich and poor further than ever, thus benefiting primarily the wealthy.[/li][/ul]

22

A good way to sum it all up is Bill Maher’s astute comment about right-wingers and tea party types calling President Obama “socialist”. “Socialist?” said Maher, “he’s not even a liberal.” So true.

The much-touted PPACA failed to include a competitive public option to the insurance companies. It did, however, legislate an insurance mandate. The mandate was appropriate, and so are the subsidies, but in the absence of a public option the ACA was – notwithstanding its considerable benefits to many and the tiny modicum of regulation it provides – one of the greatest gifts ever bestowed on this useless and sordid industry, which continues to gouge Americans incessantly and at every opportunity.

23

People who say both parties are the same usually have some vested interest in blurring the distinctions in order to promote their own agenda/candidate. The parties have similarities, but their differences are huge

24

I haven’t looked at the numbers, but what a lot of people don’t realize is that liberals use words differently than a lot of other people do.

If a government program is slated to increase by $3 billion next year, and the budget that actually gets passed allows for a $2 billion increase instead, the liberals spin that as “a $1 billion cut.” They never bother to make clear than the program is still increasing spending.

This is why the liberals howl about the “austerity” of sequestration, even though total government spending is still increasing by leaps and bounds. The only thing that sequestration is really doing is slowing down the rate of increase.

25

It is very VERY clear to me that most of the “both sides are the same” crowd are those with very low information.

So much ignorance; so little time. :smiley:

Let’s start with the observation that government is now about the same size, as a percentage of population or GDP, as it was in the 1960’s. It’s a curious mathematical fact that something cannot continually increase and remain the same size. :smiley: When programs like Social Security, affected by a specific demographic trend, are excluded, government has shrunk since the 1960’s. (Shrinkage was strongest during the Presidencies of Carter, Reagan, and Clinton.)

Taking these in turn:
[1] While it’s true that left-wing* GOP leaders like Reagan and Bush-41 allowed tax increases in the 20th century, has any Republican supported tax increases in the 21st century? (* - By today’s standard.)

[2] Utter ignorance. See above.

[3] What’s your definition of “Keynesian economics”? Hint: Pursuing Starve-the-Beast policies in times of prosperity is not Keynesian.

26

Don’t you think that’s something you ought to do before making an argument that’s based on the numbers?

27

I will never, never even entertain the thought that both major parties are the same after the 2000 Presidential Elections, in which George W. Bush and Al Gore were the Republican and Democratic candidates, and Ralph Nader ran on the Green Party ticket.

The election came to turn on the results from Florida, which immediately after the election was within a few hundred votes of tied. After multiple recounts, careful scrutiny of hanging chads and butterfly ballots, and litigation going up to the Supreme Court, the election was decided for Bush by a bit over 500 votes.

Before the election, several very liberal friends quite earnestly told me that I should vote for Nader because the major parties were just the same, and it didn’t matter if Bush or Gore were elected because both parties were so corporate-driven they would lead the country in the same direction.

Nader pulled in about 100,000 of the 6 million votes cast in Florida. If just 6% of the Nader voters had voted for Gore instead, it would have tipped the election the other way. Of the Nader voters, undoubtedly a substantial majority of them had liberal views. Had Nader not been running, though perhaps some of his voters would have been so disgusted or unmotivated they didn’t vote at all, it is virtually inconceivable that there would not have been at least 600 more Florida voters added to the Gore column than came out for Bush.

As a result, those Nader advocates were sorely, sorely disappointed at seeing the distinct differences between the resulting GW Bush administration and the Gore administration that might have been.

28

If the two parties were really “the same”, and the plutocrats didn’t care which set of stooges won, why did they spend billions on the campaigns? Why did black-robed gentlemen on the highest court find the election so important that they openly dishonored themselves in service to their masters?

Billdo, you are 100% correct. But I do hope you’ve donned your asbestos suit! When I voiced similar opinion, Nader voters attacked me from all directions, with self-contradicting claims.

The Nader candidacy of 2000 was a major tragedy. And especially ironic since Al Gore would have been much “Greener” than any President ever, including Teddy Roosevelt.

29

I voted for Gore, and I wish he had been a good enough candidate to draw the Nader voters. That he was not, I do not blame Nader or his voters.

30

But just because people with money support a candidate or party doesn’t mean there is corruption involved.

31

One thing I’ve noticed in the comment section of Yahoo articles is a certain type of Trump or Carson supporter that thinks that “everyone” is upset with the establishment. I often see these comments in stories about how Jeb is doing poorly or how Trump or Carson are doing well in the polls. The comment will typically be something about how people on both sides are upset with the establishment and that this is why Sanders is doing well. They seem to think that Clinton is going to loose for the same reasons that Jeb is loosing. Maybe I’m not familiar enough with the Sanders supporters, but I don’t see his campaign as being anti government or anti establishment in the same way that Trump and Carson are.

32

It was commonly pointed out by Nader supporters that many rich people and companies donated the maximum amount to both Bush and Gore. The same will be true in 2016. Hundreds of rich bastards will shovel money to both Hillary and the Republican candidate, as well as to others within both parties.

The reason is easy to understand. The majority of government business is not things that the Democrats and Republicans fight about. It’s things that they agree on. They agree that most industries should be heavily regulated. They agree that government should grab several trillion dollars in taxes each year. As long as this is true, every corporation will need to influence the tax laws and regulations, regardless of who holds the White House.

33

It might have been commonly pointed out, but is it true? Because it certainly doesn’t make any sense. If someone donates a bunch of money to my campaign, yeah, I can see how I might be favorably inclined towards them as a result. But by the same token, if they donate a bunch of money to my opponent, I’m going to be inclined away from them. And if they do both at once, well, why should I care at all?

34

It’s certainly true in some cases. OpenSecrets.org, for instance found 48 big donors who were happy to assist both the Democrats and Republicans, most of them splitting their donations close to 50-50. That was in 2010, but I doubt that much has changed since then.

35

I remember hearing that the difference between Democrats and Republicans is “Democrat” is a sneering pejorative while “Republican” is a vicious slur.

36

Those were donors to the Democratic Governors Association and Republican Governors Association though. They aren’t even parties or campaign committees.

(I love the name “OpenSecrets” - it uses easily found public info and still makes it sound like they are revealing some kind of secrets. Oooooh!)

37

I more or less agree with the opinion that both parties are the same. Yes, they have some differences in their platforms, and there are some members of the parties that push more for what they believe than for their party politics. But in the end, I don’t see anything particularly meaningful to distinguish the parties.

By that, I mean, our system more or less guarantees a two-party system. As a result, two parties get into power, and the continuum gets drawn along the axes of difference. Obviously, that continuum isn’t a perfect fit for everyone, but many people can fit more or less on one side of the middle, and thus it just creates an incentive, for anyone who is reasonably close to that continuum to vote for whatever party most closely fits their side or they risk the opposite party getting power. And once this continuum gets established, all those issues upon which it was based either get distorted way out of wack, or they get so closely aligned as to make any difference negligible.

But what about those of us who don’t fit anywhere neatly near that continuum? From a perspective far enough off, there really isn’t all that much difference between the parties. Sure, one or the other might pay a little bit of lip service to some of those issues, but there really isn’t much. For instance, the Republicans are supposed to be the small government party, but both parties have continued to expand government power. Hell, The USA PATRIOT Act was passed with a Republican congress and president and that’s one of the most egregious power grabs in recent history. Or we spend all this time arguing over other crap, like Obamacare; I thought both parties’ solutions were bad, it was more an exercise in which one was less bad. And let’s not forget the wars, drone strikes, bail outs, etc.

And in general, it seems the positions these parties select are based around staying in power. They depend on each other, and both make concessions to the other to make sure, at least if they’re not in power, the other one is, so they can keep policies in place to block out a potential third party gaining too much ground and throwing off the whole power balance. They’ve both done a great job of demonizing the other side, so people are so scared of the other guys that they’re afraid of “throwing their vote away” on a third part.

So, sure, there are differences, they’re just not differences I care about. Sure, one party is slightly closer to my views, but it’s really more like choosing between a pile of crap and a pile of crap with sprinkles. Are those sprinkles really enough of an improvement to make that pile of crap palatable?

38

There you go. The parties are different. It’s the fact that you are in the middle that makes the differences not matter to you, or at least it makes it harder for you to make a choice.

I find it interesting that you compare it to two bad choices rather than two good ones. After all, what you hate about one side, the other side is the opposite. Maybe it’s like choosing between Twix and Reese’s rather than crap and more crap.

39

Bush Jr should have disavowed folks of the “all same” notion. Gore would have been highly unlikely to have invaded Iraq, and modern history changed significantly. YMMV

40

There have always been somewhat significant policy differences between the two parties, however there have been several congressional/Senate campaigns in my lifetime and a few Presidential where both guys are so moderate that their positions over lap to the point the political differences have been quite small.

The GOP in particular used to have a much wider spectrum of positions, and people weren’t “primaried to death” for not being “Republican enough”, this new trend of doing that has pushed the GOP much further to the right than its mainstream has historically sat.

However I think the people that express the sentiment are actually talking (at least in my experience) more about how responsive politicians are to their constituents (minimally, regardless of party) and how genuine they are (minimally.) I can ascribe to this to some degree. I believe a great many politicians in both parties on the national level are largely just naked power hungry narcissists. A variety of personal factors (maybe their peer group, the State they grew up in) have lead them to align with a particular party, but they really don’t personally care about issues or anything other than advancing their political power and prestige. They do this by selling issues to voters in a way they know will win them elections, but they aren’t that invested in the issues themselves.

I’m not saying all politicians are this way, but I think a significant number are at the higher levels of politics.