How far is the gap between what D's/R's say and what they really want?

Generally, a political platform is going to be considerably more nuanced than what its proponents actually want, since if they openly say what they really want out loud, they might not win any elections again for a long time to come.

So I wanted to ask: How far is the gap between publicly expressed political intentions, and actual unmet political desires deep down? For instance, most Democrats don’t publicly favor a widespread ban on gun ownership; they call for things like background checks, assault arms ban, etc. But is that simply because they know they’ll lose votes if they call for a widespread ban and repeal of 2ndAmend?

What do liberals really want, that they can’t say out loud?
Ditto for the R’s. What do R’s really want, that they can’t say out loud?

I don’t think most Democrats want to ban gun ownership. I think they want what they are advocating for (" background checks, assault arms ban, etc.") I’m sure there are exceptions who do want to ban gun ownership, but realize that’s not going to happen.

As a liberal, I can’t think of anything I want that can’t be publicly advocated. I’ll monitor this thread to see if something rings true.

IMHO, there is a sizable minority of liberals who actually do want “open borders” but won’t say so out loud. There is also probably a considerable chunk of conservatives who want a theocracy run by R’s, and/or a lot more discrimination on the basis of race/sexual orientation tham currently permitted.

Question for the OP: Do you want the Democrats to speak for what the Democrats really want and the Republicans to speak for what the Republicans really want, or do you want this to be another thread full of partisan “What they really want is to destroy America!” sniping?

In the general public (IE… this forum), you will not find many things that people, either R or D, that won’t or aren’t willing to say exactly what they want.
Now in the political world, you see this all the time.
That might be a better question or thought exercise?

Good point. I’ll keep my mouth (mostly) zipped now.

I don’t know what the OP would prefer, but I would like the former. Also a pony and a billion dollars. Although don’t worry so much about the pony.

I don’t know if there is a lot that I want that I haven’t been able to say. I could never be elected, from either party, but that’s not always because of my policy opinions.

For instance, I would like Roe v. Wade overturned and the decision on whether or not to allow abortion during the first two trimesters left to the states (all third-term abortions except to save the life of the mother, or on a non-viable fetus, would be banned absolutely).

I would like a freeze on all federal spending until the budget is in balance, but that would include Social Security, which is traditionally the third rail of politics, so that would pretty much doom my chances at being elected to anything.

Lots of other stuff - disband the Department of Education and replace it with block grants to the states, limits on appeals in death penalty cases, remove the cap on Social Security taxability, the death penalty for telemarketers. You know - mainstream, common sense solutions.

Regards,
Shodan

Without answering my question?

Actually, in the case of a lot of Republicans, I’d bet the discrepancy would swing the other direction as often as not. I mean, if you look at the Republican platform
of Texas, it includes stuff like:

[ul]
[li]We oppose all efforts to classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant. We further urge the US Senate to defeat the “Cap-and-Trade” legislation, as it is outside the authority of the US Constitution. [/li][li]We urge the Texas Legislature to eliminate antiquated “Blue Laws.” [/li][li]We support free trade as a necessary component of American capitalism and of the United States’ influence in the world. We strongly oppose the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), the Trade in Services Agreement (TISA), and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). We demand the immediate withdrawal from the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA). We demand the repeal of the current Fast Track Authority/TPA.[/li][li]We support the repeal of the 17th Amendment of the United States Constitution and the appointment of United States Senators by the state legislatures. [/li][/ul]

So I imagine that some don’t really have issues with cap-and-trade, or climate change. Others probably DO have problems with blue laws due to their religion. A bunch of South Texas Republicans are probably very lukewarm about withdrawing from NAFTA. And I imagine some have philosophical issues about letting the legislatures elect senators that they don’t speak out loud.

The real gap is not between what liberals and the radical right (I don’t think ‘conservative’ applies to either party any more) will say they want. The real gap is between what they think the other side wants and what the other side really wants.

I don’t think any senior and/ or rich as hell Democrats are ever going to push for higher taxes on the 1%, or anything similar that is against their own personal interests. The public positions are just for votes.
Neither do I think most Republicans are really that opposed to abortion, at least other than when it is used as retroactive contraception.

Ending the influence of money in politics? Both sides.

I have never met a single conservative who would propose a theocracy. Prayer in school, sure, but a theocracy? That seems to be a far left talking point with no basis in fact.

Discrimination? Active discrimination by us or allowing others to discriminate? I abhor racism in all of its forms, and the 1964 Civil Rights Act was a necessary hammer to use to bring blacks into the mainstream and allow them the use of facilities that white citizens are allowed to use. However, I think it served its purpose and although a full repeal might not be in order, I oppose its expansion.

I don’t see the equivalence between the discrimination faced by blacks in 1964 with gays or lesbians in 2019. I don’t see the necessity of a new law and the idea seems only as animus towards those who have sincere objections to things like making same sex wedding cakes. Just go to a different bakery. I don’t see the need to force some guy to bake you a cake, just because we want to lecture to him that he is wrong.

Could you imagine if Civil Rights Laws were repealed and a black family was denied a hotel room because of their race? The Yelp reviews alone would cause a media firestorm, and any company that wanted to stay in business would have to repudiate that policy immediately, and for that reason would not have it in the first place.

That is not a hill that any R is will to die upon, so we will never have that debate.

There’s a lot of hyperbole, combined with a small handful of extremist wing-nuts on both sides of the aisle.

I think the big difference these days is that the Republicans have managed to get their party discipline tuned up so that they’re all goose-stepping in sync and in the same direction.

Meanwhile, the Democrats are much less in sync; you have AOC mouthing off on one side, Joe Biden saying something else, and Bernie Sanders saying something different than either. And that’s just the big names right now.

On a related note, presumably Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’ chief of staff is a Democrat, and he said that the Green New Deal wasn’t originally about climate change at all - they were planning ways to change the entire economy.

And of course a few years ago Jonathan Gruber, one of the architects of Obamacare, mentioned something else that he thought but didn’t want to say out loud at the time -

Cite.

Regards,
Shodan

Alert the media! Political operatives are sometimes dishonest! Film at 11!

The Perception Gap

Relevant to thread.

I consider myself to basically be a liberal Democrat. But it’s disingenuous to assume that, with all the possible political positions and nuances, that everyone’s beliefs are going to neatly fit into one of two slots.

But I am a Democrat and this is what I want.

I believe in policies that lead to controlled and sustainable economic growth. That includes strong but skeptical regulations and oversight for business to make sure they act in the public interest. This protects not only the consumer but responsible business owners. Underregulation hurts consumer confidence. Businesses that gain an economic advantage by putting the health and safety of their customers at risk hurt not only the public but businesses that are responsible actors. And that bad actions are often not discovered until it is too late.

I believe increased regulation of the financial markets leads to a more stable and healthy economy in the long term, even if it’s at the expense of explosive growth. Boom and bust economies tend to benefit the wealthy and hurt the average citizen.

This needs to be coupled with more control and restrictions on lobbyists to limit the influence of their money. Because there ARE a lot of unnecessary regulations out there and this is what gives regulation a bad name. And the bad regulations are usually driven by an industry interest to force people to buy a particular new product or service.

I believe that one of the keys to creating a long term stable economy lies in policies that increase the financial stability, education and health of the American worker. This increases productivity. This includes access to affordable health care. I do recognize that this one is complicated, though. The entire health care system in this country is out of control, and every attempt to rein in the exorbitant cost of services just seems to create more inefficiencies that the industry can exploit. The requirement that insurers spend 80% of premiums on actual patient care is a good example. One unintended consequence of that policy was to make insurers less cost conscious and more likely to pay inflated bills. Cause otherwise, they’d just have to give it back.

I do not like the term economic inequality. it implies some sort of guaranteed outcome for an individual which I do not think is the government’s responsibility. I prefer the term economic injustice and I would like to see more policies that level the playing field and create opportunities for those lower on the economic ladder.

This includes more good options for publicly funded college education. This one is key to several of the above points. It increases productivity and helps to level economic opportunities.

I am strongly in favor of increased taxes on the wealthiest citizens of this country. I believe that is what made the middle class of the 1950’s and 60’s so strong and vibrant. The reasons for this are twofold. One is obvious, more funding for government which could be used to maintain our infrastructure and strengthen social programs. I also believe that this policy decreases rapaciousness. I think successful business owners are more likely to plow excess profits into business investments and employee benefits when the alternative is “give most of the excess to the government”.

I do not believe in open borders. But I do believe that kindness, not meanness, should be the driving force behind immigration policy. Especially in our current hyper driven economy, we need more workers at the bottom of the rung. I would like to see some sort of clearinghouse to match refugees with prospective employers. And I would reverse some of the policies intended to bring low skill manufacturing jobs back to America. Let Mexico and Central America have the car battery factories back. One way to reduce immigration is to bring more opportunities and economic stability to the home countries.

I do not understand the emphasis on the new proposed policies favoring highly skilled immigrants. We don’t need workers to compete with our recent college grads for STEM jobs. We need workers that are willing to clean fish, slaughter chickens and pick fruit. The only reason I can see for the policies favoring skilled workers is racism.

I’m not opposed to private gun ownership and I don’t know many Democrats that are. I do believe that it should be subject to the same kinds of rules and restrictions that we apply to automobile ownership, though.

I’m not a socialist. I believe in, for lack of a better term, Democratic capitalism. I believe capitalism works best under the stewardship of a democratically elected government committed to protecting the interests of the people.

I am a strong believer in civil rights and I believe that the emphasis on individual freedom and the pursuit of happiness is what makes our country great. And I believe that there are solutions to our challenges that are based in love and kindness and strength, not hate and meanness and fear. Kindness is not appeasement. But it is hard sometimes. A lot harder than bullying. But we need to try to rise to the challenge.

Oh, 100% chance of that happening. Without question. But it wouldn’t be a hotel hanging out a sign saying, “No negroes allowed,” it would be a pattern of the hotel manager “forgetting” to reset the “No Vacancy” sign or claiming a “glitch” with the Travelocity reservation when an African American shows up to rent a room. It is a rock-hard, dead-solid, sure as the sun rises in the east, facts are facts sort of thing that not only would such things happen after the elimination of the Civil Rights Act, but very likely occur today. One has to be living in an alternate universe not to see that this is so.

But as for the OP, I think most policies advocated by each side are pretty close to what they want. But of course politicians are not generally honest with the difficulties of their jobs, but I’m thinking more along the lines of “I have to go to this fundraiser and smile for all these people giving me thousands of dollars, but this is bullshit” to “Jesus Christ, I know I have to go to the state fair but man, a lot of stupid people congregate there too.”

“I am not a member of any organized political party. I am a Democrat.” - Will Rogers

You can’t really say what groups want because within the group there will always be dissenters.
However if you gave each party convention carte blanche to implement changes to the laws totally free from voter backlash the changes would be big.
Republicans would:
Ban all abortions not needed to save the life or physical health of the mother.
End Affirmative Action.
Get rid of the Departments of Education, Energy, Labor, HHS, and HUD.
Get rid of estate tax.
Expand the death penalty.
Deport illegal aliens.
Restrict all immigration.

Democrats would:
Raise income taxes on everyone making over $75K.
Implement a VAT.
Legalize all current illegal immigrants.
Ban the death penalty.
Legalize all abortions.
Implement Single Payer Health Care.
Implement a Millionaires Tax.
Legalize Affirmative Action in College admissions.
Mandate Electric Cars.
Mandate Renewable Energy.