They both spend like crazy, they both get funded by the same corporations, and we’d be in Iraq no matter who might be in power. Except for a couple of hot button issues like abortion, I just don’t see that much difference between the two. In the last 25 years since I’ve been voting, I have not noticed one thing different about my life when political parties change power.
Yet the mutual acrimony seems genuine. I don’t get the impression that it’s theatrics. So folks, what is the difference?
Boy this is a lame and tired argument. Do you expect there to be a 180 degree reversal when parties in charge change? Things like veto power, senate rules on cloture, and life terms to the Supreme Court make change gradual. This can be both good and bad. Chances are the majority of Americans don’t share your political beliefs and any politician that can get elected won’t reflect your views 100%…
Some of the differences between the political parties:
Taxes: Dems lean towardsa more progressive tax policy with more burden on corporations. Pubs want to lower tax burden on the rich.
Social Issues: gay rights, abortion
Civil Rights: Pubs want to weaken federal supervision of elections in southern states, more stongly support Patriot act
Defense: Pubs want to spend more on defense than Dems, have closer ties with defense industry
Environment: Dems support stroger CAFE stds, more spending on alternative energy, stronger regulation
Labor: Dems support labor unions
Elections: Dems want more control of election spending to help reduce effect of corporations
The Democratic Party stands for social justice, civic responsibility and individual freedom. The Republican Party stands for minimal government, individual responsibility and free enterprise. Put 'em together, you’ve got a pretty good system.
One party has micro-brews and pot, the other has kegs and flunitrazepam. YMMV.
Domestically I see variance - certainly their used to be in relation to taxation.
In terms of foreign policy and Imperial projection in particular, the same corporations fund the same goals. Just different suits.
I’m not sure what you mean here, but we wouldn’t be in Iraq without the Republicans. We probably wouldn’t be in Iraq without George Bush in particular, although there are several people in his administration, and many of the folks from the PNAC, who might have gotten us into Iraq had they been president.
The Republican Party likes to pretend it stands for these things but as we’ve seen recently when they have the opportunity they’re far bigger spenders than the Democrats.
The Republican Party primarily serves the interests of the large corporations and the wealthy. Since corporations can’t vote and there aren’t that many wealthy people, the Republican Party pays lip service to cultural conservatives and small-government libertarians to gain the support it needs to win elections. But once in power it rarely delivers on its rhetoric. For example, when the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress and the presidency, they did nothing to shrink the size of government or ban abortion, two extremely hot-button issues for major blocks within the party.
The Democratic Party primarily serves the interests of the middle and lower classes, i.e. everyone else … .
I think this pretty well sums up the political climate right now. The problem with strictly identifying party values is that we’re in a period of increasing intra-party division, especially in the GOP. Small government, fiscal responsibility et al. theoretically SHOULD be Republican values, since they are often touted as such, but the ambitions of the neoconservative movement have seemingly rejected these values of late. The results are bigger government (typified by such things as the Patriot Act) and bigger spending without increased revenue to marginalize it. Two main differences in the parties that I still see today are: 1) the Democrats’ lenient stance on many social issues; and 2) the GOP’s reluctance to dedicate large amounts of money to social programs.
It’s important to note that the Republican party was once the more progressive of the two main parties, having supported abolition during the Civil War. Whenever I hear someone identifying themselves as a Republican today claim that they are such “because Lincoln was a Republican”, I cringe because the GOP of the 1860s was hardly the GOP of today, or even of 50 years ago.
Dems don’t want you to have any guns or money.
Pubs don’t want you to have any sex or drugs.
Put 'em together, and we’re safe from everything dangerous! 
Very doubtful. We would have been in Afghanistan regardless of who was in power, but Iraq was pretty wholely a Bush-Cheney thing.
Iraq: GOP for, Dems against.
War, generally: GOP spoiling for a fight, Dems think of war as a last resort.
Minimum wage: Dems want to increase it; GOPers don’t - and many would abolish it altogether if they could.
Social Security: Dems want to preserve the existing system which guarantees a benefit and removes the risk, GOP wants to have private accounts that would put the risks and possible benefit increases with each individual.
Universal health care: Dems for, GOP against.
Doing something about global warming: Dems for, GOP against.
Protecting the environment generally: Dems for, GOP against.
Unions and protection of workers’ rights: Dems for, GOP against.
And I could keep on going, at length. Yeah, there’s a difference.
Domtically, they talk a difference.
Not convinced practice would see quite the same scale of distinction.
I might go with ‘domestically’ next time.
Hmmm. Where would you place Social Security, tax policy, health care, environmental protection, workers rights, tort reform, individual liberties, and national security if not in the domestic realm?
Me no speak Barbarian. Say gen slowly?
To approximately quote P. J. O’Rourke:
“When the Republicans wreck the economy, they make money doing it. When the Democrats wreck it, they do it just for fun”.
There is really only a marginal difference between the parties. Take taxes, for instance. Both parties are now fairly firmly wedded to the notion that taxes should be lowered when they can. Democrats want to target tax breaks at people in the lower income brackets. Republicans, on the on the other hand, want to give tax breaks to everyone who pays taxes. Since the rich pay most of the taxes, they would get most of the tax breaks. Republicans also believe in reducing taxes on the productive members of society in order to spur economic growth. Democrats, at times, also support this (Clinton pushed through a capital gains tax cut during his term).
On the environment, same thing. Most of the disputes are about exactly how far certain environmental proection should go. It’s not as if Republicans are opposed to environmental protection. They just want it to be done in a way that doesn’t impose as much harm to the economy.
Similarly with the war in Iraq. Anyone who says the Democrats oppose the war is simply misinformed. The war in Iraq had strong bipartisan support in the beginning and it still does. Very few Democrats are advocating a complete withdrawal. There is a dispute between the parties about how to prosecute the war, but no real debate about ending the war.
I could go on, but don’t listen to people who paint the differences between the parties in such stark terms. The differences are on the margins of public policy.
This from someone who said:
:rolleyes:
I’m asking you, if you don’t see them as differing on “domestically” oriented matters, how would you categorize all of the issues that I listed (that people would normally consider domestic issues), on which there are clearly demonstrable differences in practice between the two parties?
In my opinion, Republicans appear particularly interested in suggesting that there are no differences between them and Democrats now. However, I think they generally like to shape the idea that there is little difference between the two in order to increase the shrug factor, and then sell voters on specific wedge issues. It’s the only way I can really understand so many people voting against their interests, or answer questions like “What’s the matter with Kansas?”.
There are clear differences in outcomes over decades of data between the two parties.
Don’t listen to people who want to minimize the difference between the two parties.