I don’t want this to sound conspiritorical. If that is a word…?
But it has always seemed to me that the difference is that Republicans lie differently than Democrats.
They don’t really have different plans or aims.
If they did then they would repeal each others actions when they change leadership. They never do.
It has always seemed to me that the two party system makes things perfectly suited for control and manipulation…“If not this then that…If not that then this.”
The degradation and further control of American life continues.
Republicans are essentially small government, pro-business, pro-religion.
Democrats are essentially large government, pro-union, pro-easy morals.
American political parties are really coalitions more than parties compared to other parts of the world.
Well, that’s complicated. Usually, the President sets the policy, and usually they end up conforming to the dogma. For instance, Bush-41 was pro-choice before he got put on the national ticket. Similarly, Bill Clinton was pro-gun rights until he became president, but was pretty much trying to use the federal government to grab them when he became president, and kept trying to do it no matter how many times he got slapped down.
Well, we really never had more than two parties. The Whigs preceeded the REpublicans, which hadn’t actually formed until 1856, but they were extinct by 1852. The Whigs themselves emerged into the power vacuum left by the demise of the Federalist party, which ran aground in 1814 after it opposed the War of 1812 (Wow, a party stabbing the country in the back at a time of war paying for it. What a concept.)
I think it’s more along the lines of regional. Back in the mid 19th century, the Republicans were more the liberal party and the Democratic party was more the conservative one. And not surprisingly, the regions that they were strong in were the opposite of the ones they are strong in now. For instance, up until the 1970’s, southern states were “Yellow Dog” Democratic. You could run a yellow dog as a Democrat and he’d win.
(Sadly, the Dog retired from politics, and the Democrats who succeeded were no great shakes.)
Not really; they need a large government for war, to spy on people, to keep the lower classes and minorities ground down, and enforce their so-called morals. They just object to government being used for benevolent ends; for war and oppression, harassment and exploitation they love big government. Neither party is interested in “small government”, it’s just a buzzword.
The government shouldn’t be in the “benevolence” business. The government should be there to fight wars, that’s what it was formed for. It should build roads and bridges and stuff like that too.
It should NOT be there to make sure that little Johnny has a box of condoms and knows he knocks up little Sally, the government will take care of Sally and her offspring for life.
I’m just wondering what the government is doing to keep “minorities and lower classes ground down” exactly? I mean besides making them dependent on government.
The government was formed to keep the peace in its territory. Wars may or may not be relevant to that end (historically, US wars have increasingly fallen into the “not” category).
Irrelevant; the big-government agenda at issue is the plethora of religious-right impositions.
Unless you want wide scale starvation, disease, and general social unrest yes it should be. That’s what small government leads to, and that’s the most important why government has gotten larger over time; it needs to be to do its job.
Throwing them disproportionally in prison for longer sentences with less (or no) evidence, for one thing. And everyone is dependent on government who isn’t living in some isolated hut in the woods digging with their handmade tools.
You said in this thread that merely the absence of evidence is not a good enough reason to exonerate. Now you claim that it is. Which statement was untruthful?
Please produce a cite where a reduction in the size of government in the USA led to wide scale starvation and disease. Unless that was another of your untruthful statements.
Let’s save some time here - adopt the following as your sig.
"Everything I say that isn’t cited is a figment of my imagination.’
If I claim that adding shards of glass to the meatloaf served to students at my local high school would lead to injuries and possible deaths, would you demand a cite that this has happened before at that school? Would you call that statement a figment of my imagination?
Never trust a Republican to accurately characterize a Democrat’s positions, and visa versa.
Democrats aren’t anti business, they are pro-consumer (or at least they used to be). They aren’t large government for the sake of large government, they are pro-law enforecement because they know that human nature leads to cheating on financial items, environmental items, etc. They aren’t pro-union just for the union’s sake, they are pro-worker because management gets out of line occasionally. They aren’t pro-easy morals, rather, they are in favor of personal freedoms.
Republicans think that a public school teacher making $50,000 per year is a leech on society, and that a corporate CEO making $10,000,000 is a noble public servant.
It seems to me that the primary difference between the Republicans and Democrats is that the Democrats want to protect the weak from the strong, while the Republicans want to maintain the current power dynamic without government interference. As a result, Democrats support large government assistance programs for the less fortunate and support taxation on those that they feel can afford it. Republicans on the other hand are opposed to such assistance and don’t want to lose any of their financial power to pay for it.
In the culture war, the Republicans tend to support the majority over the minority. While the Democrats will tend to the opposite. As a result Republicans will support the majority religion, protestant Christianity, and a “moral majority” view point. Democrats on the other hand will be more in favor of tolerance of minority cultures and life styles.
On foreign policy the Republicans are more in favor of an American first foreign policy, while Democrats are more likely to be concerned about the plight of non Americans.
DISCLAIMER: I’m a pretty strong liberal so although I tried to be balanced in my argument it probably came out looking a little like Democrat = good altruistic, Republican = evil self centered. This was not my intention but since I agree with the Democrat view more than the Republican it is harder for me to put their views in as good a light.
No, I would call it a ludicrous attempt to change the subject.
If you are posting that small government in the US leads as inevitably to mass starvation as glass shards do in meat loaf, then let’s see a cite showing it. There isn’t one, so his assertion remains just as stupid as your attempt to defend it.
Der Trihs is (obviously) doing his usual stupid rant, for which he never produces any evidence and which are almost self-evidently false. If you want to defend it, you will have to do a better job than the above silly-ass garbage.
As is usually the case (and understandably so), everyone is looking at Republicans and Democrats as two monolithic forces with shared consciousness between their respective members. Often the political leanings of rank and file members or associates are quite different from what is displayed in Washington.
Fundamentally, Republicans believe in smaller government with less governmental regulation of the economy and more “old-fashioned” social views. Democrats lean more toward government intervention economically and a more liberal social view.
Earlier in the 20th century, Democrats were on the side of the “little guy,” hence the association with unions and governmental regulations on business. They became increasingly more liberal, though (as did the unions), and a symbiotic relationship formed. If you look objectively at what is going on with the UAW, for instance, you can’t honestly say that Democrats are “in bed” with them because of a concern for the little guy. A lot of money and power are at stake. As people who were decidedly further left began to get control of the party, the Democratic stance on social issues went further and further left. The Democratic voter of the '50s would probably choke if he/she saw what was going on now.
The Republicans, on the other hand, went further and further right, to a degree in response to the growth of governmental power on the left. At this point more Christian ideas began to seep in and led to the association of Republicans with the ultra-religious.
I’d like to claim the same disclaimer as Buck, but as a mirror image.
And not to pick on Buck specifically, but he think he highlights the philosophical difference between Rs and Ds.
That’s my bolding in there. Republicans don’t think that “the rich” can’t afford more taxes, they believe that it isn’t the government’s money to take. Likewise, Republicans aren’t opposed to helping the less fortunate, they’re opposed to the government taking money from some and giving it to others. Personal charity is a far different concept than welfare.
I’m not sure what the plight of non-Americans is, but again the philosophical differences jump out. R’s want America’s government to be concerned with America, not with saving the world (W obviously doesn’t apply here).
The overarching difference is in what each party thinks is the main role of government. Republicans say the government is there to provide security (i.e. armed forces) and services (like infrastructure, mail, etc.) - hence them being “more in favor of an America first foreign policy,” lower taxes, less regulation, personal responsibility, etc.
Democrats lean more toward government being a protector and provider, helping those who are less fortunate, protecting consumers from big bad business, and approving every food, pill, machine, etc. that people might get their hands on. This, of course, means higher taxes. Thus the “render unto Caesar” mentality, welfare programs, social justice programs, etc. (And I must interject a conservative jab - income redistribution under the guise of “fairness”).
I didn’t mean to suggest the Republicans think that the rich can’t afford it, rather I was describing the Democrats view and why they are in favor of a much larger tax burden falling on the rich.
That is basically exactly my point. I even agree with you about the wealth distribution although I don’t see it as a bad thing. Republicans basically want people to fend for themselves, which has the inevitable consequence that the strong continue their dominance over the weak, while Democrats want government to take a hand in leveling the playing field. Of course both parties take a moderate stance with regard to this dichotomy. Democrats don’t want a Marxist society, and Republicans don’t want a society of fuedal warlords, but basically I think this is the difference.