This reminds me of what one of my (very conservative) law professors used to say:
Liberals wake up every morning and say “how can I make the world a better place?”
Conservatives wake up every morning and say “thank God it isn’t any worse.”
PJ O’Rourke is a national treasure. One of my favorites (not an exact quote, I’m working from memory):
“Giving politicians money and power is like giving teenage boys booze and car keys.”
PJ O’Rourke is a national treasure. One of my favorites (not an exact quote, I’m working from memory):
“Giving politicians money and power is like giving teenage boys booze and car keys.”
Why yes, themoon, precisely.
Especially if you define “the people” whom Democrats/liberals are empowering as union honchos, lawyers, real estate moguls and securities firms.
Meanwhile, the Republicans are empowering tobacco, drug and phone companies.
Is this a great country or what?
Yes, if you ever want to demonize a politician, or a pary for that matter, simply blame them for supporting lawyers and union honchos. Since everybody hates lawyers and unions, until they need a lawyer, or need a mechanism to fight for workers’ rights, this always plays well. It is, in fact, one of W’s favorite tactics. Remember how the republicans shot down health care reform, because it would favor trial lawyers?
And, of course, the democrats have never done anything to actually help the common man or minorities. And the republicans have never done anything that would favor big business interests over those of workers.
Right.
Damn, Jack! I think you put your finger on something.
This is why I’m a Republican; drugs, smokes, and cheap long distance. That’s what I want out of government!
The way you put it, you’d have to be crazy to be a Democrat (which explains a lot.)
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Scylla *
**
Then you should move to my state - a Republican governor and GOP-controlled legislature, a chain of chintzy discount cigarette outlets called “Smokes For Less” and drive-through liquor stores* (they didn’t have these things in Texas!).
I’m still waiting for the cheap phone rates, though.
themoon, in your righteous fervor, I think you missed the second half of my soft money links - the Republican ones. My point was that both major parties have their snouts deep into the trough to the more than occasional detriment of “the people”.
It’s arguable that it may not be to “the people”'s benefit when the interests of trial lawyers are paramount, and unions do not have to account to members for soft money donations to the Dems.
*I am cheating a bit here - even if you consider liquor a drug, Seagram & Sons actually gave a bit more soft money to Democrats than to Republicans.
By the way, can anyone explain the sinister connection between Fruit of The Loom and the G.O.P.?
And as a Democrat, will I be ideologically safe in my BVDs?
I would view the people who vote the party line unquestioningly as very naïve. In many ways the current political system is set up for voters to vote for a party, not an individual candidate. You’ll always find some Dem and Rep flunkies hanging outside voting locations with pamphlets on how to vote the line.
It is also impossible for individuals, speaking for myself at least, to reconcile personal political beliefs with party platforms. In other words, there are fundamental differences that prevent independent thinking people from buying into a political party. Maybe it is just me, but disliking a prepackaged this is what you get political philosophy shows a faculty of judgment and discernment rather than naivety.
As for your reasoning for having political parties, I would think a similar rationality could be used in justify joining a gang if you’re sent to prison. If a young man were sent to the pokey, wouldn’t it be in his best interest in join the Aryan Brotherhood so he would be with other “like minded” folk (in this case the same race) rather than go at it alone and have no one to listen to him (in this case protect his backside from gang rape.) Sound like a good deal? There is a slight problem that he doesn’t really believe in the “Aryan” philosophy, but what the hell, at least he would be able to sit down without massive amounts of pain if he compromised his beliefs and joined a gang. Of course his so-called “Brothers” would want him on his knees as payment for protection, so he’d be punished at one end for saving the other.
A man is drowning two hundred feet from the shore. A Republican is a guy who will throw him a 150 foot rope, and encourage him to swim the fifty feet, because it will do him good to be responsible for himself.
A Democrat will throw a 300 foot rope out into the water, and then run down the beach looking for someone else to save.
Tris
Damn, even the Libertarian self test thinks I am a liberal!
Actually, that’s very, very true.
It has been my experience that Democrats don’t giving a rats ass about history. Whenever I bring up a historical event for the purpose of illustrating human behavior or tendencies, my liberals pals answer, “Oh, that was then and this is now… we live in a different world now… they were just a bunch of evil white men… we’re more enlightened now… we live in this century, not the last one… let’s look forward, not backwards… you’re living in the dark ages, this is the 21st century…”
In other words, Democrats believe:
- The basic, driving motives and tendencies of humans change over time
- If it happened more than 50 years ago, it’s irrelevant
- History doesn’t repeat itself
- History should not be used as a learning tool
- Completely and utterly wrong.
- Thoroughly and irrefutably wrong.
- So wrong it gives me a headache.
- Wow. Coulja be more wrong on that?
stoid
Democrat
choking
You’re kidding, right?
If we go for recent news then the democrats are ahead:
http://web.democrats.org/election2001/races.php
In another list that showed all the 300+ cities that had an election for mayor, the republicans won less than 25% of the races.
Even the good news for the republicans regarding NewYork has to be tempered by the fact that Bloomberg won on a pro-choice, pro-gun control and pro-gay rights message.
GIGO, one can temper that enthusiasm even further by noting that Bloomberg had been a Democrat his whole life, until deciding he wanted to be mayor. He has not been shy about admitting that switching to the GOP as a flag of convenience was simply a shortcut into the finals. That technique is pretty commonly used in single-party-dominated jurisdictions, like NYC and my home state.
As has been stated repeatedly, “Republican” and “Democrat” are not synonymous with “Conservative” and “Liberal”, although there has been an identifiable tendency toward that alignment since the Sixties. Still, more Americans than either would either call themselves “Social liberal but fiscal conservative”, or simply “Moderate”, and would reject a mindless affiliation with either party. There’s a saying that politics is played between the forty yard lines, and I believe that. Despite often-inflammatory rhetoric from the zealots that often infest the policy-making branches of both parties that gets attention in the news, what actually gets done tends to be along moderate lines. It’s a mistake to think, as many rightists seem to, that “not conservative” equals “liberal” - that’s a mindless, useless shorthand.
Note that Bush owes a debt to the right wing that provided his vote base, and which his actions showed him to be a member of, and the fury of resistance when he tried to push that agenda through earlier this year. Note also the fury of resistance when Clinton tried to push national health care through at a similar stage in his administration. Neither took a sufficiently moderate, broad-based view, and the moderates resisted it.
We tend not to discuss it much, but we’re a nation of ticket-splitters on Election Day. We tend to assign the Presidency to one party and the Congress to the other almost invariably, in the hope that they cooperate in the broader public interest - or at least compromise on moderation. Note the sighs of relief when the Senate went back to Democratic control, for instance. When they cannot cooperate responsibly, as has been the case in recent years, nothing significant gets done - but that’s usually far from the worst possible outcome.
I’ve got to say, the quiz and such at self-gov.org had it worded very simply:
Left/Liberal: Tolerates diversity in personal matters, favors equality in economic matters.
Right/Conservative: Tolerates diversity in economic matters, favors equality in personal matters.
While yes, you can be a Republican or Democrat without subscribing to either of these, in general this is the party line.
I think the word they are looking for is conformity rather than equality. But that does sort of spoil the (false) symmetry, doesn’t it.