What is the difference between the Democratic and Republican Parties?

Great Debates
41

Anyway, ultimately it boils down to this.

The Democrats have long had as their power base labor unions and the lower classes. Dating all the way back to Jefferson and the Democratic-Republican party, they favored the lower classes.

The Republicans have long had as their power base bankers, merchants, industrialists and the monied interests, this too dates back to the same time period with the Federalists and Alexander Hamilton.

There’s competing ideologies in the United States. One values the entrepreneur who makes himself a millionaire because they fuel innovation, the economy, and represent the “American Dream.” On the other hand there’s the ideology that private citizens shouldn’t be permitted vast fortunes, that they should be confiscated and redistributed to the poor. People ascribing to that ideology are going to viscerally oppose the wealthy and support Democrats and oppose Republicans.

Both parties are incredibly diverse, and both parties are polarized when it comes to national governance. For over 150 years the Democrats were painted as the party of slavery and the Confederacy even though a huge percentage of them were strong advocates of Civil Rights and did not support slavery (looking further back.)

There’s something like 537 elected offices in the Federal government and the handful of men and women who hold them tend to shape national thought on what a party is. With each election cycle a slightly different incarnation of the GOP and a slightly different incarnation of the Democrats come to power. The current President for example has little in common with Dwight Eisenhower just as Clinton had little in common with Jimmy Carter.

Both parties have clear lines in the sand drawn and clear differences, but at the same time both parties are “big tent” parties. Over a million Democrats in Texas voted for John Kerry in 2004, and traditionally liberal states have, if not always Republicans in Federal office many Republicans in state legislatures and sometimes the Governor’s mansions. New England, California, and Texas republicans are all different creatures just as Massachusetts Democrats are a far cry from Tennessee Dems.

It makes it difficult to clearly label either party on a wide range of issues (Harry Reid is pro-life, by the way.) Likewise, our government is structured to force compromise. It’s very rare in the history of this country that one party controls the Presidency and both Houses of Congress with commanding majorities. Only when a single party controls the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate, can it truly implement its policies without serious compromise. But even then, it can’t really do that, because party discipline in the United States is notoriously weak compared to many other representative governments around the world. Democrats and Republicans both often do not side with their party’s legislative initiatives. This is why sometimes to the casual observer it can be even more difficult to distinguish between the two sides, even when one side is in power and the other is not, compromises have to be made so final legislation tends to have some influence from both parties in it.

42

Based on just that dataset, I’d agree that it suggests that Democrats have more often used military action than Republicans. I’d also suggest, however, that that is hardly a full data set of military action, so I’ll reserve judgment until someone shows me all the available data on administrations and military action.

If you want to argue that the economic data doesn’t show causation, I won’t differ with you there. It never will and never could.

It does make it much harder to argue that Republicans are better for the economy, and absent any better data, I’ll take past performance as an indicator of future.

43

Not really.

I would say this is a misrepresentation, but it doesn’t matter. You are now saying the Dems aren’t really in favor of cutting taxes, and we all agree that the GOP is.

Remember, what we’re debating here is, is there a difference between the parties? On this issue, you say yes. So do I. We agree.

Of course they pay most of the taxes; they have most of the wealth and most of the income.

The point is that, contra. to what you were saying, the GOP doesn’t cut everyone’s taxes equally; they target tax cuts at the rich. And FWIW, the Dems don’t. Difference.

Actually, it isn’t. You said “Clinton pushed through a capital gains tax cut during his term.” You haven’t provided a cite. And you’re apparently backing off your claim.

Dems can think of some rather important ones. Global warming, anyone?

Again, a big difference.

We aren’t arguing whether support for the measure was bipartisan; we’re arguing whether there was a difference between the parties on the measure.

GOP 264-6 for. Dems 109-148 against. Difference.

This is of course a totally artificial and arbitrary standard.

The Dems could simply refuse to fund the war, and have the money run out sometime next month with our troops stuck in Iraq, and the resupply convoys no longer running.

Yeah, I suppose the Dems could do that, but there are surely other ways of bringing the war to an end. The Dems seem to have found one. The President obviously is strongly opposed to their bill. Difference.

Are you saying the President is bullshitting us, that there really is no difference but he’s throwing a set of hissy fits over this bill just because that’s the sort of guy ye is?

44

It’s been over 40 years since Johnson escalated the Vietnam war. The character of the Democratic Party with respect to war and peace has changed somewhat since 1965.

Let’s talk about the parties as they are now. It’s fair to go back in time with respect to characteristics the parties have had more or less continuously over whatever time period you’re examining, but it’s silly to compare today’s Dems to the more Southern and hawkish party of 1965 on issues of war and peace.

45

I’m saying that their budget proposal isn’t in favor of cutting taxes. Most Democratic elected officials, however, are in favor of some form of tax cuts from the rhetoric I’ve heard.

Again, I never said there was no differences. I said there were only marginal differences. Yes, the parties disagree on how to cut taxes, not really on whether to cut taxes.

Again, I never said there wasn’t a difference.

Furthermore, I disagree that they target their tax cuts at the “rich.” It is much more accurate to say they target their tax cuts at all who pay taxes, which just happens to be people who make more money.

Whatever. Clinton supported a capital gains tax cut.

What legislation have they pushed for to address this? Going back to the 90’s, the Democrats were strongly in favor of a Senate resolution authored by Robert Byrd that in effect repudiated the Kyoto protocol.

Wow. So you proved a marginal difference. Just what I’ve been saying. :rolleyes:

No, I’m saying that there is a marginal difference between the parties. In DC, the fights are over that margin. The fights are not over some fundamental policy differences. You seem to think that I’m saying that Democrats=Republicans. I’m not saying that. I’m saying that their differences aren’t really all that profound. They are a matter of degree, timing, targeting, and things of that nature.

46

It’s internal consumption on a bill that isn’t going anywhere. Even people on this board are eating this blatant political theater up.

As for the Iraqi War, it is very true that both parties supported it but it’s important to realize that it originated with Bush and pals. I really don’t see Gore invading Iraq, even if he magically had the same cabinet. I’m sure PNAC would’ve tried to convince him just like they attempted with Clinton in 1998. We’d probably be listening to late night comics making fun of his goofy views on climate change and his inability to convince Congress.

47

Wow. Some tax cuts.

So as long as the Dems aren’t against every possible tax cut that might ever be considered, the differences are trivial.

Whatever.

Not to mention, massive disagreements on the scale of the tax cuts, as well as who should get them.

A capital gains tax cut isn’t targeted “at all who pay taxes”; it’s targeting “people who make more money.” Tens of millions of American families have never paid capital gains taxes, and they tend to be in the lower part of the economic spectrum.

Cite, please. Life and politics being what they are, most Presidents sign bills that include things they oppose, so signing doesn’t demonstrate support.

They’ve introduced legislation in recent Congresses, but the GOP hasn’t let it get to the floor. This year is likely to be different; the Dems have been holding hearings on global warming lately.

GOP 264-6 for. Dems 109-148 against. Marginal.

If I burned down your house, I would explain to you that that’s just marginally different from a cheery fire in your fireplace.

No, I’m disagreeing on the scope of the differences as well.

Just an hour or two ago, the Senate passed a bill that would bring our participation in the Iraq war to an end next year. Dems for, 48-0. GOP against, 2-46.

Deciding to end a war, or continue it as is, is not a marginal difference. Being for the occasional tax cut, and being for a series of enormous tax cuts, are not marginal differences. Not being able to think of any environmental protections we need, and being able to think of quite a few, is not a marginal difference. Etc.

48

It doesn’t need to. Without a bill, the war ends.

To continue the war, the GOP not only needs to block this bill, but it needs to move a completely different bill through Congress.

That may yet happen, but it’s far from a done deal.

49

Definitely, we’ll talk about how Clinton got us involved in Somalia, and Bosnia.

I don’t think the Democratic party of Woodrow Wilson that took us into WWI, the party of FDR that took us into WWII, the party of Truman that took us into Korea, and the party of Johnson that escalated the Vietnam War are the same party as is in office today.

Nor do I think the Herbert Hoover administration that oversaw the stock market collapse is the same party of today, either. That was part and parcel of my point, being Hentor’s Slate article which was doing an analysis of stock market performance over a 100 year period in Democrat vs. Republican Administrations has about as much to do with anything as Vietnam or the Korean War.

50

OK, feel free to look at the analysis over a shorter period if you like.

But the reality is that over the past century, the GOP has consistently been the more business-friendly and rich-friendly party, while the Dems have consistenly been the party that has paid more attention to the economic welfare of the average citizen. I’d argue that that validates the use of the longer time period, but IIRC, the analysis still works for a shorter time horizon.

51

I won’t disagree with that but nor do I believe that there is anything wrong with creating a good business climate or in letting the entrepreneurs and industrialists who employ the average citizen keep some of their profits.

52

As you’ve even admitted, Democrats support tax cuts. They disagree on the scope and the targeting of such cuts. However, on the issue of cutting taxes, both parties in general agree that lower taxes are fine. If you want to think that disagreeing on which tax rate gets more of a cut and which tax gets cut is a “major” disagreemnent, then feel free.

Obviously you weren’t paying much attention to the news in the Clinton years: http://www.filetax.com/97taxact.html

Wow. Holding hearings. Let me know when they actually start advancing legislation.

No, it’s more like the difference between burning down the whole house and only 75% of it. You’re still screwed either way.

You may think so, but the record in DC is that nothing fundatmental really changes in DC when parties switch powers. The major pieces of legislation recently, such as welfare reform and the war in Iraq resolution, had bipartisan support. History contradicts your efforts to paint the parties as radically different on the issues.

53

OK, let’s try this: in 2001, Bush pushed a $1.3 Trillion tax cut package through Congress.

How big a tax cut do you think there would have been if Gore had won?

Is there something in there that’s supposed to support something you say?

OK, send me your email address. Thanks!

History, yeah. If this were 1967 rather than 2007, you’d be right as rain.

Lessee: I’ve already addressed the Iraq resolution. Bipartisan support =/=> minimal difference. Done that. Welfare reform? That’s probably your best argument - and that was Clinton trying to save his ass by taking credit for something before the GOP shoved it down his throat. People will do interesting things when they’re fighting for their political lives.

You’ll notice that Clinton was fighting for his political survival because an election of significance preceded that reform - the Gingrich Revolution of 1994. So if you’re saying elections don’t affect things much, you’re saying that a bill you’re describing as one of the “major pieces of legislation recently” is marginal in effect.

Which forces the conclusion that to you, every piece of legislation is marginal, and American politics can be mapped onto a point with only mild loss of precision. Reductio ad absurdum.

54

Whether that’s true or not, it doesn’t undermine the graph.

55

See? Hemingwayesque. I love it.

56

As I heard a documentary filmmaker once say, when discussing the influence that a change of regime in the White House / Congress would bring to American Foreign policy:

The Republicans are like the thief that will break down your door or smash a window when they come in to steal your stuff.
The Democrats are the kind that use a lock pick or a window cutter to make as little damage as possible when they come in to steal your stuff.

57

When it comes to tax cuts, I think most people see a few bucks coming back to themselves, most of which is quickly spent at the nearest Wal-Mart. Only the top tier of earners see enough of a return on a tax cut to actually invest, which then radiates throughout the economy (I always hated that term “trickle down.” I’m not down here, I’m out here, damnit!) But what we don’t think of is that decreasing taxes also decreases government revenue, which means money to be spent on the things taxes are needed to pay for. I challenge anyone to point to a single instance where tax cuts have (A) reduced waste or fraud in government spending, (B) significantly reduced the “size” of government or © significantly improved the lives of the American middle class.

The thing is, there will always be money for aircraft carriers, office furniture in Washington and landscaping along the Potomac; those who spend our money will make sure of that. That’s what every businessman calls “overhead,” and it gets paid first. What gets paid with the last dollars is food for hungry children, vocational training for teen-age girls, and reading programs for adults tired of living in drafty trailer houses. And when tax cuts come around, those are the first things that get cut, while new office furniture still gets bought, the landscaping is still done and the carrier fleet is still repainted.

I’ll admit I was overly optimistic and too terse in my first post; I’ll also own up to being a Democrat (not much fun here in bright red rural Colorado.) But when you talk about the differences between the parties, these are the things that need to be talked about. They’re subtle differences – unless it’s your child going hungry or your daughter flipping burgers or your socks frozen to the closet wall.

58

Have you ever considered that the reasons there are not huge changes in Federal laws after control of Congress or the White House changes is because of the structure of the government, not the beliefs of the parties? For example, Social Security would probably be privatized by now save for the fact that the minority party in 2005 could use its numbers to stop such a bill from ever passing. There would be oil drilling in ANWR but for the same reason. The estate tax may have ended during the Clinton Administration except for presidential vetoes, and it probably have been completely eliminated during the Bush Administration except for needing 60 votes in the Senate.

Laying this all at the doorstep of the parties being the same is misleading when the system of government also discourages radical changes in policies.

What’s more, there really aren’t a whole lot of changes in party power in Washington, so it isn’t like we’re dealing with a lot of data points. Dems controlled – with a few exceptions in the Senate – the Congress consistently for four decades, then Republicans for another 13 years, and over the last twenty years, the White House has only changed party control twice.

59

That’s exactly what I’m talking about. Social Security would not be “privatized” under the President’s proposal. It would have continued to exist, only with some users having personal accounts. It’s not as if one party was advocating ending Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid. Both parties accept the rationale for these programs but may have different ways for administering them.

Drilling in ANWR is, again, a marginal issue. It’s not as if one party is pushing for a major overhaul of our public land structure. Both parties buy into the rationale for public land. They simply fight over just how that land would be used.

True, but even Democrats recognize the need to, at the very least, scale back the estate tax. Both parties are agreed that the estate tax hurts people, they just differ on the level of relief that should be given.

60

Well, you kind of missed the entire point of my post, but thanks for reading it just the same.