Is There Really A Difference Between The Two Major Political Parties?

Politics & Elections
41

Alright, okay, let us look at this.
If we start another new thread called the Effects of Neoconservative and Neoliberal policies in United States international and domestic affairs in the Twentieth and early Twenty-Fist Centuries thread, could you take the paragraph quoted above and explain it so even I can understand it?

Can you explain the motives and decisions that went into proposing and eventually adopting such strategies? Was there opposition from members of the other party? Was any of it done to support an ally or hurt an enemy? Did we make oil deals with the Saudis to “create a reserve currency” – or is it more likely that some greedy businessmen decided to become robber barrons overseas since Teddy Roosevelt broke the trusts that had made them wealthier than the government domestically?

Can you dispute the notion that the father of the famous Koch Brothers developed a technology that made gasoline more profitable, but at the cost of changing clean(er) burning white gasoline into the pinkish smelly gas that we burn in our cars today that cause MUCH more pollution, and that he sold or used the technology in Russia for fifty years and made a pretty tidy sum while helping to develop the John Birch Society which warned against and demonized the Russian people and politics??

You state an event (which I am not even sure existed) – and then you state that the event caused a certain result. You also strongly suggest these events and these results are planned and premeditated. Perhaps you are correct in all the details (or even some of them), but I cannot follow the events or the logic of how and why they happened.

I want to understand what the hell you are saying in case it turns out you are correct. But I CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING.

Try a narrative I can understand: [Start dream sequence music and wavy images dissolving to] In 1985, President Reagan wanted to fund guerrilla fighters in Nicaragua, but congress would not allow it. Undeterred, Reagan developed a plan to sell weapons to a government under a weapons embargo so the profits could be funneled into . . . .
. . . . part of a hostage negotiation . . . . . . real goal was the overthrow of the Sandinista . . . . . . . . leading to a Congressional investigation.
[end dream sequence music as wavy lines resolve into current time]
VOICE OVER: "This is a classic example of the American government using Neo. . . . which in turn eventually lead to a trade deficit which ended the “Stagflation” that was a constant element of the previous administration.
And that my friends, is one example of how . . . . .

Please do two things while you work on this if you are willing to give it a try-
First, examine your presuppositions and be sure you understand them so you can explain them to me. And then
Second, walk me through the steps so I believe some politician actually took these steps on purpose. Once that is done, we can all reach a conclusion and it is very likely to match all the others conclusions including yours.

42

On my way to library right now to look for this one you recommended, I have never read it.

But it does remind me of books I either have read or am familiar with. I really like Daniel Levitin book The Organized Mind, but it is about a mile thick and covers the same ground as this one (in a lot more detail for the first quarter or maybe third I can say for sure)

The other book, it took me several days to recall. I have not read the whole thing, but I heard an NPR interview with the author and found the subject really compelling. I read excepts and reviews and tried to reserve it at my library but they had no copy at any of the local municipal libraries.

I really liked the concept behind this book because the author is so remarkably correct – we almost never think of solving a problem by subtracting hardware or infrastructure or anything really, we always add. (I think he even uses the example that when there is bad code in software they do not go hunt it down, subtract and replace it- they make a patch that adds more code to override the bad code [but that might have come from the interview not the book].)

He also makes the point that children and toddlers are sometimes able to create very graceful solutions by just removing the part that is causing a problem while adults hardly ever think of doing that. They (we) tend to build supports and braces for the parts which are failing long before we consider just yanking it, because it means redesigning from scratch in our adult minds, to remove any portion of the original design.

Thank you again.

43

I think the tone of the thread title refers to major differences between the two political parties. By referring to manner of dress, etc., you are looking for any differences. In which case, the answer to that is obvious, and even involves individuals rather than political parties.

44

I take it you have no questions about neonconservatism, i.e., given what Chomsky and others have said. That’s good.

That leaves us with neoliberalism. Might Chomsky help again?

45

Okay fair enough. I do see the two major political parties as more than one thing. In some ways, they are the actions they have taken in the past. In some ways they are the policy, the ideal they are trying to accomplish in the future. In another way they are the leaders they elect (for example at one time Newt Gingrich was to a large degree the Republican Party, but recently the same party was equal parts of the policies of Mitch McConnell and the personality of Donald Trump [possibly because Trump doesn’t have any policy agenda and McConnell doesn’t have a personality]). In still another way of looking at them, they are the sum of every individual registered in that Party.

In that last case, it is probably easier to summarize or describe or label especially the Republican Party more recently because of the tribalism in effect at this point in time. Many, many Republicans (including myself) have left the party recently [last five years say] because they do not like the leadership or where the party is headed.

That is all sort of background, or road rules, or simple clarification. I am beginning to understand you see “The Party” (either one- or both) as what they have done in the past. Is that fair to assume, to take as an established fact? If that is the case, what about the intention? What a party does-- or what it ends up doing is not always what it would want to do.

Would it be fair to say that in your way of thinking, the two major parties end up “doing” (as opposed to intending to do) something similar because while one wants to go more [I am going to avoid using left and right because those terms might mean something specific to someone reading this thread if it would be me, you, or any other participant-- I will try color as a substitute]. So one party wants to go more red, but the other party drags them toward the yellow and they end up orange. When the other party is in power or behind an initiative, they are trying to create something yellow but by the time it passes through the red colored process it ends up orange. Do you think the end result is probably (or certainly) the result of compromise, or an adversarial system? Is any similarity between the parties past histories a result of systematic conflict? Does every effort eventually become influenced by tugging from the other side?

The reason all of this matters to me, is because I am all about intention. What is or was the initial intention and what went right or wrong with applying the basic intention. Examples of things that have passed through Congress with near 100% approval are from times when both sides agree to take action and roughly what the action should be: right after 9/11 passing laws beefing up security breezed through with very little reflection or opposition. More recently the anti-hate crimes against Asians (whatever it was actually called) also breezed through because no American [or anyone else really] thinks it is okay for a bully to pick on someone else just because they are weaker (or because of an unfair hatred not based in facts).

But mostly, everything everywhere in national government is the result of the two sides battling it out and ending up somewhere in the middle.

Okay, I begin to think I am understanding you better. What do you have to say about the intentions of the two parties? Do you believe that no matter which one ends up in the Executive branch, and weather congress is split, in opposition, or aligned it does not matter because foreign policy is always about applying neoconservative/neoliberal policies in equal measures to accomplish universal goals?

Is it the INTENTION of either party to enact foreign policy that is based upon exercising neo-C/L policies and it does not matter which win? If that is your argument, then you need to explain to me (and not defer to outside authority figures like Chomsky for example) why that is their intention. What are the benefits to the nation, to either party, to personal political power, whatever it is you think is motivating all national leaders for the last century. Is it to remain a Superpower, to limit other nations, if you say to create a global reserve currency I am going to go nuts!! (If that is truly your answer-- then you need to show why that is a worthwhile goal for each year since 1947.)

Serious question- did you watch the Sam Kinison clip, and did you see while the pat answer of the young blonde student was technically correct (to some degree), but completely useless? (It reminds me of helicopter in the fog joke told about Microsoft – where am I? In a helicopter! Then he goes straight to the landing site because the answer told him where he was because it was 100% accurate but also 100% useless so he must be at the Microsoft help desk at Microsoft headquarters.)

I will watch the new Chomsky clip later, but I am beginning to get a grip on what you are meaning about your view. It would be very helpful for me if you could separate your premise from your conclusion so I can evaluate the first and arrive at my own version of the second. But you can’t seem to see them as two different things (I assure you, they were at on time in your past). Because you have made that connection so long ago, and seeing either congers up the other in your mind — you just see them as one entity. If you examine your beliefs deeply enough, you will recall what premise you started from and what conclusion you arrived at. If you could present them to me in that manner it is very likely I will make the same connections you have. (So might others.) But since you just keep insisting there is no difference I am never going to get what you are trying to say- my mind just does not work that way.

Thank you for your replies. Let’s see if we cannot reach further understanding as we discuss this more.

46

My take on it is that there is one party that is, for the most part, genuine about developing and implementing policy that they feel is in the best interest of the country and it’s citizens. They make bad decisions sometimes and occasionally one of them will turn out to be corrupt but the party is pretty good about holding their bad apples accountable They are frequently smug and pedantic but they are well-intentioned, whether you agree with them or not.

The other party is a pack of lying thieving grifters that are defrauding the country with the goal of transforming it into a Russian style oligarchy.

Here’s two excellent articles for historical context. Please note the second article was written in 2012 and there are aspects to it that seem historically quaint, like painting Mitt Romney as the consummate lying politician.

I get the frustrations among traditional conservatives. I get that they want to pretend discussions on progressive vs conservative economic, foreign and social policies are still relevant. They still might be, if the Bush/Ryan conservatives has stood their ground - but they skittered into their little hidey-holes and hid while their party as destroyed from within because they were scared of mean tweets. Because everyone knows a runaway boulder will stop on its own if you just give it time and space to pick up speed.

Debate only works if both sides are arguing with at least a modicum of good intention. Republicans have absolutely no genuinely held policies anymore, they will advocate for whatever will serve their corrupt intentions at the moment, but they will pivot completely at moments notice if they can grift more money by advocating for the opposite position.

I think this dynamic makes debate worse than useless because it lends a veneer of credibility to a group of people that has none and deserves none. In most situations, if you wanted to choose a financial advisor, you would ask them probing questions on a variety of investment strategies.
But if the two candidates for financial advisor are Warren Buffet and Bernie Madoff, that’s a strategy that’s not only stupid but dangerous.

Which we why we handed the entire country to a criminal organization whose only intention was to grift the country and let them keep it for four years.

And people are so desperate for normalcy they may do it again.

47

I agree with this (and your whole post) but even more so.
(Don’t forget, I am a recent defector from the Republican Party so I am prone to conspiracy theories, cognitive dissonance, and illogical connections.)

The current Republican Party is at the minimum trying to overthrow genuine democracy for an oligarchy, but I believe those very large outstanding personal loans Trump has signed go back to Putin (whatever institution holds the paper in a legal sense) and Trump has been an asset for quite some time. Not of Russia even, of Putin as an individual.

I also believe Trump is an unbelievably valuable asset because his understanding of international affairs falls short of any Rocky and Bullwinkle cartoon and is just about as current. He is also cowardly and has great faith in those he believes hold genuine power and are genuine tough men of power (like the ones who are always approaching him with tear filled eyes). That combination makes him willing to do the most absurd things imaginable without ever thinking about resisting the real man who can crush him. It might also lead him to believing that Putin can fix things if it really gets bad for Trump.

Since I am reverting to my Republican mindset momentarily, let us even imagine Trump has helped Putin get ‘opposition research’ on Americans in positions of power which might explain congressional power players staying loyal to 45 despite the soundness of dumping him now.

All of that is just about the leadership of the party. I think almost all of the registered votes left in the party are in an altered state. It is like they are young and not fully developed and their slightly older, loud, racist, sexist cousins who party WAY too much have come to town and while they are fun - - they are also a very bad influence. So the young impressionable voters have their first beer or their first toke and jumped right into the frame of their cousins much to their regret. Many woke up with a hangover and left the party (literally), but some just looked to their questionable cousins for guidance (they have done this before, we might as well see how the get us out of it). So now the Summer is over and the cousins have gone back to whatever place they crawled out of (the combat zone in Boston? The Oath Keeps lair?) but their affect upon the party is still being felt. In other words, I hope this might be a temporary state for the GOP; they are a complete mess but there might be hope in the future.

The Democratic Party is a paragon of virtue by comparison in my view. It is hard for me to believe that I trusted Reagan and Oliver North, and thought Bill Clinton was unbelievably untrustworthy because of lying about Monica Lewinsky. Talk about quaint notions!

On purely moral grounds the Democratic Party is superior in every measure. They champion the weak and disenfranchised, they promote care and safety for all (including the rich and powerful), they fight hatred filled- centuries old stereotypes, they value the old and others who have done their share of the work previously but might not be as profitable any longer, and they want to eliminate suffering. A very few might take it a bit far for my taste (if you have never found a person of color or woman who deserves the consequences they have earned you are too far left for me). On the other hand, they can recognize that going from the suburbs to the wealthier suburbs is a shorter trip than going from the ghetto to the suburbs. The latter trip having many long term and dangerous obstacles of an institutional nature while the former is simply a matter of preference, or at most desire. (I suggest some very privileged Republicans spend a year in a ghetto and try to preference their way out of it!)

While the Democratic Party shines in the domestic arena, they also do very well internationally. They are smart enough it seems to know that isolationism is doomed to failure especially militarily. Also in diplomacy and economic development and humanitarian efforts and good will between nations. While Republicans may try to accomplish their goals through use of only the stick, Democrats are far more likely use the carrot as well as the stick.

Two finally points on that score. It is quite possible that we would not have had Fifteen Thousand Haitian refuges living under our bridges if we had adequately helped them rebuild after the natural disaster. That goes for almost all foreign aide in my opinion; not only should we invest in our own infrastructure, we should invest in the infrastructure of places that might end up on our (or some other nation’s) doorstep tomorrow. There is nothing quite like stability to keep people from trying to immigrate illegally. Even if it would have cost a little more to do the right thing it would have been a good investment (and not just for moral reasons). The great success of World War Two was not the victory. As tough as it may have been for the United States, it was harder for every other nation and Russia sustained losses that were devastating in every measure of their society. Loss of life, loss of infrastructure, loss of ability to feed themselves, and on and on. What made America great was the humanitarian gesture of the Marshall Doctrine where we gave to those who were our allies and those who were our enemies so they could have proper state apparatus to live peacefully. I seem to recall that Marshall and Eisenhower and many involved were Republicans but it is the kind of far sighted, clearly moral, and beneficial efforts I now associate with Democratic values only.

I am genuinely saddened by my former party falling deeper and deeper into madness. But I have to invest my efforts in the fight that is worth winning and the only side who is trying to do good and be honest. I was becoming disillusioned with the religious right as early as 2012 or 2014 and by 2015 something had changed for me. By 2016 and the nomination of Trump I had to look for excuses to support any Republican notion and I was adamantly anti-Trump. I still hoped but shortly after the inauguration I was convinced Trump was never going to grow into the job. By that Summer I was also convinced the party was not going to make him do the job properly. By 2019 I was so anti- Trump and anti- Republican that I was shunned by my family and former friends. In 2020 I did all I could to resist the reelection of Trump

I do not support every little thing the Democratic Party does, but that is where my loyalties are. I resist every single Republican idea, thing, person, and initiative I encounter (with hopes they will sometime revert to sanity). Donald Trump was able to do what many liberals tried to do but failed; he changed me from staunch Republican to a very left leaning Independent. I oppose Trump with every fiber of my being and fight against him and his supporters. The only success I wish for Trump and his supporters is to overthrow the Republican leadership in the Senate.

Yea, I see a huge difference and it is as stark, as clear as the difference between the dark ages and the Renaissance.

48

Although the evidence is largely circumstantial, it’s starting to look like there were Trump operatives involved in organizing the Haitian migrant caravan.

I wouldn’t put it past them.

49

I want to give you kudos for writing such a post. There are days when I fall into deep despair at the state of my country, but a post like yours gives me much-needed hope.

It’s a rare person who can own up to past misjudgments, educate themselves and recalibrate their world views. There really is a difference between Democrats and Republicans. You outlined them very well.

I was never party-affiliated for all my many years as a person who is interested in politics. I have voted mostly for Democrats but sometimes for Republicans, too. Last year for the first time, I permanently affiliated with the Dems. It makes voting pretty easy as I only have to decide in primaries between Democrats running for any position. I don’t think that is going to change in my lifetime.

50

At least they call them caravans now. During the Trump administration penniless refuges moving toward the US border were called “convoys” which is a military term and suggests images of tanks or other military vehicles advancing to battle (rather than underfed brown or black people wearing almost rags walking toward the potential of food and safety).

Thank you very much, boy does this come at an ideal time! Your support is highly appreciated.

Just yesterday I was invited to never contact a friend ever again if I intend to discuss politics. He is sorry our friendship has deteriorated to this point but he just isn’t going to argue politics with me. I was invited to rejoin his company and church if I ever “find” the correct party affiliation or religious affiliation in the future. (He would be more than willing to discuss politics if I agreed with those he holds.)

51

Then you’ll fit right in with the rest of us Democrats. Welcome to the big tent where we’re all allowed to argue and complain about each other!

52

Thank you, happy to be here. In fact, next round is on me!

53

Here is another example that may be seen in light of neoliberalism:

In 2016, Big Business challenged Trump when the latter wanted to pull the country out of agreements to cut pollution. Now, the same Big Business is going against Biden for doing the opposite.

What’s going on here? It’s very likely that Big Business knows that there cannot be much by way of cutting down on pollution because everyone–Big Business, Big Government, the Military, and Households–wants to earn and spend more, and that ultimately means more pollution. The same goes for the global population and the global economy, where up to 70 pct earn less than $10 daily and want to earn (and, of course, spend) much more than that, and where the other 30 pct are counting on them to do that because their own jobs and investments are dependent on the same.

But Big Business (and probably others) wants to show the public that it cares for the environment, so it argues otherwise; this especially helps for their ESG corporate ratings, and also explains why they became increasingly “woke”. This also explains the feel-good news about “saving the world” by changing light bulbs and using “gamechanger” technology which isn’t really so.

But with Trump out of the way, they can now do what they really want, which is business as usual. That’s why the writer shows that their new campaign is “a quieter one.” And if it is true that everyone wants to earn and spend more, then it is very likely that that campaign will also be successful.

54

If you want to be snarky, reply that you don’t enjoy discussing geography with flat earthers.

55

IMO one difference is that the Dems seem to try and spread wealth around with intention of raising everyone’s standard of living while Republicans try and justify their own selfishness.

56

Conservatives are harder on impoverished, and lower class people. Liberals have better welfare, health care, and free programs for the lower class, lower-middle class to help get them on their feet. A lot of people abuse the system though, and just skirt by on life on benefits. Liberals also hike taxes up on everything, like gas, cigarettes, alcohol, auto insurance, housing, and part of that is going towards the medical system, or to pay for their green initiatives kinda stuff. Far left, and right people in their own way are assholes. Maybe marijuana should be legal if alcohol is. People who are addicted to hard drugs could be handled better than locking them up for like 5-10 years. Instead, let’s attack the dealers of this shit with harsh sentences, not users. There should be those rehab, and other kind of programs to help people out. They really can make a difference in some cases. Maybe guns should be legal, but people should at the very least need to have licensing for them. Maybe the borders should be less open to some extent. Maybe certain things that are on the radio, or on TV should be illegal, like music glorifying criminals. Maybe insulin in America is way to expensive.

57

How about the right to an abortion (or even contraception), public funding of health care, gay rights? I think of those as domestic issues.

58

Democrats have their hearts in the right place (barring a few corrupt officials here and there), even if their heads aren’t always in the right place. Republicans have their hearts in the wrong place, so it doesn’t matter where their heads are. None the less, their heads are usually in the wrong place as well.

59

I despair of Dems supporting systemic election reform because most House reps are in safely gerrymandered seats.

There is no realistic hope of Republicans ever getting on board with reforms that make elections better for voters.

60

Raise the lake. So all boats float.

Not the pit, so I deleted some stuff.