Taking a shot at briefly describing the ideals of Republicans and Democrats.

Please correct or add to my views. Let’s see if we can refine this into a fair description of the ideals each camp tries to live up to. (I know neither camp consistently succeeds in this)

Republicans as a whole want the government to stop taxing them so much and to let them decide how to spend their money, how to settle their affairs and how best to deal with social or economic problems as they emerge with a minimum of meddling. When people have to take responsibility for their actions or face the consequences, progress will cease to be slowed down by the lazy and the parasites and everyone will live in a fair and free country and have an unfettered shot at the american dream.

Democrats think that if they make everybody finance their grand projects and be nicer to those in need, everybody will end up better off. Education and skill levels will go up, crime will go down, a social net will raise the morale of the country and promote economic growth and prosperity and happiness levels will generally increase. They say to stop worrying about yourself and be part of the big, caring tribe.

Extremes of the first view point can lead to fascism and injustice and extremes of the second can lead to socialism and stagnation and each side has a different idea on where the perfect compromise is.

Please keep it civil. We’re not arguing about the failings of each party, just the ideals and viewpoints they embody. How they see the world and what their vision of a perfect U.S.A looks like.

Have at it and shred my imperfect descriptions.

Each party is really a “big tent” of several different interests and factions; it would be problematic to come up with a definitive list, even of vague ideals, on which all could agree and clearly distinguishing the party from its opposition. To the extent it is possible, we already have each party’s election-year platform.

I’m not sure if that’s depressing or heartening…

In any case, you’re right. I suppose what I’m asking for is the individual opinion of what those parties ideals ought to be as they understand them.

Republicans as a whole want the government to stop taxing them so much and to let them decide how to spend their money, how to settle their affairs and how best to deal with social or economic problems as they emerge with a minimum of meddling, unless those social problems offend a very narrow interpretation of completely subjective morality. When people have to take responsibility for their actions or face the consequences, progress will cease to be slowed down by the lazy and the parasites and everyone (Except for gays, non-English speakers, and evolutionary biologists) will live in a fair and free country and have an unfettered shot at the american dream.

Democrats think that if they make everybody finance [del]their grand projects[/del] a minimum social saftey net [del]and be nicer to those in need[/del] otherwise mind their own beeswax, everybody will end up better off. Education and skill levels will go up, crime will go down, a social net will raise the morale of the country and promote economic growth and prosperity and happiness levels will generally increase. They say to stop worrying about yourself and be part of the big, caring tribe.

The way I’ve always understood it:

Republican: We must limit government influence in economic affairs – the economy works best without interference. On the other hand, it is necessary to regulate individual behavior in some cases in order to enforce morality and proper behavior.

Democrat: The economy functions best with government regulation to encourage competition and ensure fairness to all. The government has little business regulating individual behavior though, as long as that behavior does not cause harm to others.

Of course it’s a lot more complicated in the real world.

It sounds like you are looking for simplistic sound bites. Personally both parties are too close to being the same to actually matter in the details. We need a viable third party.

I can’t really give a thing for either party as a whole…

Republicans are composed of Libertarians, Neocons, Values Voters, and Paleocons

Libertarians are more or less anti-government, and generally want a smaller, leaner government (true anarchists, as arule, do not vote and do not vote Republican). They get really pissed off at

Neocons have relatively little interest in business or economic issues. They are in fact leftists but crossed over because the Democrats started going into the deep-leftism (as exemplified by McGovern, etc.) They tend to be liberal on domestic issues but desire an aggressive foreign policy, seeing this as the only way to safeguard both America and prevent tyrannies. They see the world as a violent and chaotic place that is not particularly advancing.

Values Voters as a discrete group started popping up alngside the Neocons, and the two groups do not get along. VV’s want a more traditional social order, tend to be protestant/evangelical, but generally want to stop things like Gay Marriage than start something themselves. They tend to think of government and religion as a partnership in common goals, and despise the arbitrary (at least as they see) and not-at-all-Constitutional idea of “wall of seperation between Church and State.”*

*I qualify the word “arbitrary” and not the latter because they are right about that. It’s not Constitutional and was another of the we’re-making-stuff-up disco-era judicial creations. That’s a matter of fact, although what is right is not something I’m prepared to talk about here.

Paleocons tend to be strongly anti-Communist and pro-business. This is usually Big Business, but they generall don’t much care. They would argue that in the long run, or even relatively short run, workers are better served by healthy and efficient businesses and their own ability to leave rather than attempting to control everything.

Republicans as a whole share certain attributes: the ideas of John Adams with regards to government, a no-nonsense Jacksonian attitudes toward following the rules, and a Theodore-Rooseveltian Walk-Softly-and-Carry-a-Big-Stick foreign policy stance. They favor free trade as a general rule, and want to ally with countries like Columbia. Note that the shared themes are fairly strong, more or less. Any given Republican can probably identify with two, if not more, of the above.
Democrats tend to be a bit more ideologically diverse. They include

Academics - Professional scholars in American tend to be very leftist.

Communists - Not too many left. But they exist and are very active protesters.

Great Society Junkies - they favor a strong welfare state and subsidies.

Environmentalists - everything from Anti-Nukers to Hair-Shirts to Sierra Club Members.

Animal Rights Activists - they overlap with environmentalists some but not entirely.

Progressives - these shade from pro-regulation (want more safety rules) and overlap with environmentalists and so forth.

Big City Machines - New York, Chicago, IIRC Detroit and Saint Louis, and many other cities all have serious machines running which control virtually everything, politically. Their power has waned over the years in most areas. There are Republican Machines here and there, but not nearly so many.

Racial groups - mostly includes Blacks. “Asians” and “Hispanics” are less predictable, and both are hugely varied groups anyway.

Yellow Dog Democrats - these are conservative, and might otherwise be Republicans, but come from historically Democrat areas, so it’s tradition. Or something. Their votes are unpredictable, and they often serve as the swing vote in Congress.

Last but not least, the totally random activists - there’s a nontrivial chance that in any given decade some weird issues arises that somebody protests continually.

Both of these characterizations are inaccurate, your characterizations of Democrats especially so.

It’s not even accurate to discuss ideology in terms of political parties. The Democratic and Republican parties are amalgams voting blocs and special interests-- sometimes overlapping, sometimes contradictory — not monolithic ideologies. Whatever ideological agenda is in ascendancy in a party in one decade can completely change in the next or even switch to the other party.

Right now, I would say that the Republican party is led by a pro-corporate, anti-consumer, anti-labor agenda which uses religion and social division as tool to persuade working class voters to vote against their own economic interests. The Republicans are currently engaged in a “grand program” to “democratize” the Middle East in order to gain more control over oil suppies and enrich those interests.

Understand that I’m talking about the party as an institution, not necessarily rank and file voters or "conservatives’ as an ideological bloc (or set of blocs). In theory, Republicans are supposed to represent conservative ideologies of smaller government, lower taxes and personal freedom. In reality, the government has never been bigger or more intrusive and personal freedom has never been more constrained than it has become under the current Republican President.

The Democrats have spent the last 30 years or so in disarray and without a driving agenda, even when they had the White House. The party has mostly defined itself in opposition to the Republicans but also has become the default bloc for voting blocs concerned with social justice, civil rights, environmental issues, labor, consumer rights and SOCAS issues.

Their respective views of the Constitution tend to differ.

Republicans: The Constitution says what it says.

Democrats: The Constitution says what it should say.

Regards,
Shodan

Where does the Constitution say anything about “ceremonial deism?”

ETA it’s Democrats right now who actually want to enforce the Constitution. The Republican President wants to suspend it.

It doesn’t, which is why it’s OK. It says Congress can’t pass any law respecting an establishment of religion. Ceremonial deism is not passing a law respecting an establishment of religion. In fact, many actions that are more religious than that do not “establish religion”.

No, “ceremonial deism” is a fabricated loophole invented to excuse state establshments of religion. The 1st Amendment does not allow any such exception. It’s nothing but theocratic judicial activism.

No. No religion is “established”. England has an established church-- the Church of England. Ceremonial deism isn’t even remotely close to establishing religion. An activist court has expanded the meaning of “establishment” well beyond what it’s original, legal definition was.

I wish the first amendment had been worded to forbid much more than the establishment of religion. But the fact is, it didn’t. There has been no time in our history when all three branches of government had no “ceremonial deism” or more. Never.

Anyway, let’s not continue this hijack. Have the last word if you wish.

Ceremonial deism is a kind of formal poetics, it is invoked to symbolize and ritualize the importance of the proceedings. For myself, I see no threat of religious establishment, as the interpretation of “God” is just about entirely open. Cosmic Pudding or Bolt-chucker, whatever.

Speaking as agnostic fanatic (don’t ask, its complicated…), I think it makes a reasonable and respectful compromise between the faithful and the rest of us. I think we’re giving a bit more than we’re getting, but what the hell, long as you know what you’re doing and you do it with your eyes open, you’re not being cheated.

Yes it is. Endorsing monotheism establishes monotheism. The government does not have a right to say that there is only one god.

As for relative philosophical positions, they currently don’t exist. We need to suspend this conversation for a couple years at least, allow the sane Republicans time enough to seize control (The Night of the Long Fondue Forks) and chase off this bunch of nitwits who have been running things over there.

And as a result of this blithering madness, the Dems can only be a party of opposition, until they can undo the damage done, we can’t make any real progress anyway. Until we can clear the wreckage, we have no real idea what can be done, nevermind what should be.

My point isn’t really that I care or feel threatned by it (I don’t), but that neither party has clean hands when it comes to finding what it wants in the Constitution. If there’s any difference, it’s only that liberals tend to find more freedom and conservatives find ways to curtail freedom.

If you want an issue where conservatives just make up shit out of whole cloth look at the jurisprudence on sovereign immunity. Check out Alden v. Maine and Seminole Tribe v. Florida.

The Republican Party stands for small government, fiscal responsibility, and accountability.

Jeez, this is hilarious. I swear I’m not making it up. That’s what they really used to say! Aw, phew!

The real difference is that Republicans get in trouble for violating their sacred trust to abuse power for monetary advantage or to get even more power, thwarting the will of the electorate, while the Democrats get in trouble for sex. So, the Republicans want to do to the American people what the Democrats want to do to specific Americans.

The difference between Democrats and Republicans is that Democrats think we’re all collectively screwed, and Republicans think we’re all screwed individually.