# What would be worse? If the Democratic or Republican Party had total control? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 26, 2012, 3:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-worse-if-the-democratic-or-republican-party-had-total-control/626321 "2012-06-26T03:40:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 15\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![supery00n](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5f9b8f/32.png) [@supery00n](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/supery00n)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-worse-if-the-democratic-or-republican-party-had-total-control/626321/41 "2012-06-26T19:47:32Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > It was during that time that PAYGO legislation was passed, which required any new spending to be accompanied by either increased revenue or savings in other areas. Basically, if you want it, you have to find a way to pay for it. It was allowed to expire at the end of 2002 under the Republicans. Hmm. I hate to admit it as a Republican, but I can’t help but concede that Democrats are actually more fiscally conservative than Republicans. Maybe it’s an issue of both parties wanting balanced budgets in theory, but the Republicans wanting it a lower level of spending and taxation than the Democrats so that the balanced budget just can’t happen given that you can have balanced budgets with fairly high taxes versus very low ones..Republicans are really, really good at making themselves look responsible, common sensical, when their record says otherwise, and Democrats are really bad at defending their record. I wonder why…or whether this observation is even valid. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-worse-if-the-democratic-or-republican-party-had-total-control/626321/42 "2012-06-26T19:57:34Z")
> [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](#): > > Without getting into a long discussion, would the Democrats in this scenario incorporate at least moderate Republicans (like say Jon Huntsman or Susan Collins) and would the Socialists incorporate people like Bernie Sanders? Yes to both, I should think. The point, however is this: By “Socialists” I mean “democratic socialists,” by which I mean those who (1) want democratic government, (2) combined with “socialism,” meaning, here, a system where the state (or workers’ cooperatives, etc.) owns and manages most (not all) of the means of production in the economy – i.e., democratic socialism **instead** of capitalism, as distinct from a vigorous welfare-state and labor-representation **within** it. The latter being “social democracy,” which, looking around the world, works better for all than anything else yet tried. (Democratic socialism has never yet been tried, though Venezuela might be heading that way. Authoritarian one-party socialism has been tried and does not work, or, only works for limited purposes, e.g., if a country wants to do heavy capital formation in a hurry; but it’s helpless at fine-tuning.) And if we had a two-party system made of the Socialists (e.g., the [Socialist Party USA](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_party_usa)) and the Democrats, then the vector-sum of their pushing for their respective policies, as it were, would be some form of social democracy. (An actual social-democratic or progressive party would be the [Working Families Party](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Families_Party); the Greens are a different breed of animal.) ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-worse-if-the-democratic-or-republican-party-had-total-control/626321/43 "2012-06-26T20:03:44Z")
> [@supery00n](#): > > Hmm. I hate to admit it as a Republican, but I can’t help but concede that Democrats are actually more fiscally conservative than Republicans. I think this has been very clear based on the past 30 years of political policy. > [@](#): > > Maybe it’s an issue of both parties wanting balanced budgets in theory, but the Republicans wanting it a lower level of spending and taxation than the Democrats so that the balanced budget just can’t happen given that you can have balanced budgets with fairly high taxes versus very low ones. Perhaps. But it’s also that Republicans are convinced that lowering taxes ALWAYS equals fiscal conservatism. This is ridiculous- sometimes the conservative, pragmatic move is to raise taxes. Obviously we can’t lower them to zero (or raise them to 100%)- so there must be some non-zero amount that maximizes revenue. > [@](#): > > Republicans are really, really good at making themselves look responsible, common sensical, when their record says otherwise, and Democrats are really bad at defending their record. I wonder why…or whether this observation is even valid. Yes. My impression is that over the last 30 years, the Democrats have been far better at _policy_, and the Republicans have been better at _politics_. I think the latter point is starting to change, because of demographic shifts. If the Republicans can’t appeal to more than a tiny percentage of non-white Americans, they will cease to be a national political party, and become a regional party. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 8:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-worse-if-the-democratic-or-republican-party-had-total-control/626321/44 "2012-06-26T20:20:53Z")
Ultimately, I think what matters is not which party has control, but whether or not the Democratic process is healthy. Granted, I’d HATE the policies the Republicans would enact if they were in control, because I do think they are controlled by wealthy plutocrats who are strip-mining the middle class of its wealth and will eventually create a country with a very small economic elite and a huge underclass that will probably call itself “middle class” but will in fact be more accurately describable as “the poor.” But hey, if Americans WANT this and VOTE for it, if they get the chance to debate their honest opinions in the marketplace of ideas and as many are encouraged to vote as wish to, free from coercion, then I’m OK with it … if that’s what America wants, so be it. However, Republican efforts toward voter suppression and enabling wealthy plutocrats to flood the marketplace of ideas with unlimited campaign donations indicate to me that the Republicans do not share my atttitude. So, once again, I have to go with the Democrats, though what the country NEEDS right now is a viable progressive party. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Hamster\_King](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/8edcca/32.png) [@The\_Hamster\_King](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Hamster_King)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-worse-if-the-democratic-or-republican-party-had-total-control/626321/45 "2012-06-26T20:39:08Z")
> [@supery00n](#): > > Maybe it’s an issue of both parties wanting balanced budgets in theory … . I’ve seen no evidence that the Republicans want a balanced budget even in theory. They only talk about it when it’s a convenient way to push for cutting programs that benefit the poor and the middle class. It’s sort of like how Republicans believe in “states rights” for policies they like (such as Arizona’s immigration laws) but completely abandon the principle for policies they don’t like (such as Montana’s election laws). ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-worse-if-the-democratic-or-republican-party-had-total-control/626321/46 "2012-06-26T22:07:09Z")
> [@supery00n](#): > > Well, the Democrats had the House of Representatives until 1994 (and since the New Deal), and the House controls the budget, and I’m not familiar with Democrats cutting spending cyclically according to Keynesian theory in that time … 😕 :smack: ☹ I’m saddened that **supery00n** is unfamiliar with Democrat deficit reduction in 1993. Let me tell that important story One . More . Time: > [@Which Party balanced the Budget in the 1990's?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/which-party-balanced-the-budget-in-the-1990s/531834/1): > > The Federal Budget of 1993 is one of the greatest and most important stories in modern U.S. political history. The story can be found easily with Google but let me summarize it here anyway. (The budget planned for four years, so dollar figures following need to be divided by 4 to get annual averages.) > > At the time of Clinton’s election, the federal debt had grown to alarming proportions. Clinton’s 1993 budget cut spending by $250 billion, perhaps the largest spending cut in all of history. (This was offset by such things as interest on the ever-mounting debt, and $150 billion in new investments.) The 1993 budget achieved a further $250 billion in deficit reduction by raising taxes; the most controversial tax hike was that of the maximum marginal income tax rate (the rate payed by Bill Gates, George Soros, etc.) which was increased from 31% to 39.6%. As high as this might seem, 39% was still less than the rate during most of the Reagan Administration, and certainly less than under Eisenhower, when the rate was 91%. > > What were the results of the 1993 budget? The deficit did fall: from $255 billion annually when Clinton took office, to almost nothing in 1997; and by Clinton’s last year there was a _surplus_ of $236 billion. Moreover, from 1993 to 2000 U.S. employment fell from over 7% to 4%; constant-dollar GDP rose by 33% over the same period; and of course stock prices soared. > > Contrary to right-wing dogma, U.S. entrepreneurs kept on entrepreneuring (and at an unprecedented rate) despite the 39.6% income tax. The 1993 Budget led directly to one of the most prosperous periods in American history. At the beginning of Clinton’s term, the federal debt was seen as a most important problem; by the end of the term the U.S. Treasury was redeeming its bonds at an unprecedented rate and there was concern that this would cause trouble! (Many contracts were tied to the price of Treasury debt instruments which were disappearing.) > > Now who should get credit for the 1993 Budget? Let us review voting on the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Bill (aka Deficit Reduction Act) of 1993. > > This Bill passed in the U.S. House of Representatives by a vote of 218 to 217. Every single Republican in the House voted _against_ the Bill. The Bill went to the U.S. Senate where the vote was 50-50. Every single Republican Senator voted _against_ the Bill. The Vice President ascended the dais of the Senate chamber and broke the tie; William Jefferson Clinton signed the Bill into Law; the biggest spending cuts in U.S. history were passed; and this budget ushered in an era of prosperity almost unmatched in modern U.S. history. Let me repeat: _ **Not even one single Republican Congressman voted for this Budget** _. Republicans natter about spending cuts, but on the biggest cut ever, _every single Republican stood up and said “Nay”_. Of course they would: Raising taxes on the rich (to a level still less than they were under Reagan!) was “class warfare” and would doom America! :smack: > > It is said that this was the very first time in all of history that major legislation passed _without one single vote from the “opposition” party_. Republicans led by Newt Gingrich appeared on TV, predicted a recession, and declared that the Democrats must accept complete responsibility for the consequences of their Budget. As we now know this Budget was central in rejuvenating America’s economy; and America never came remotely close to recession throughout the entire Clinton double term. The Democrats should be proud to accept “complete responsibility” for this. > > … > > The quotes I’ve found by professional economists all praise Clinton’s 1993 Budget: > > [ul][li]“liquidating the deficit ranks as one of the supreme budgetary accomplishments in American history.”[/li][li]“Without question, the 1993 Budget Reconciliation Bill has been remarkably successful in its goal of reducing the federal budget deficit.”[/ul][/li] > Of course the Republicans continued to apply monkey-wrenches to federal budgeting throughout the Clinton years. One instructive lesson about the nature of “Republican leaders” comes from a book by none other than right-winger Tom DeLay: > > > [@](#): > > > > "[Gingrich] told a room full of reporters that he forced the [1995] shutdown because Clinton had rudely made him and Bob Dole sit at the back of Air Force One…Newt had been careless to say such a thing, and now the whole moral tone of the shutdown had been lost. What had been a noble battle for fiscal sanity began to look like the tirade of a spoiled child… ---
**Author:** ![supery00n](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5f9b8f/32.png) [@supery00n](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/supery00n)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-worse-if-the-democratic-or-republican-party-had-total-control/626321/47 "2012-06-26T22:29:10Z")
> [@The\_Hamster\_King](#): > > I’ve seen no evidence that the Republicans want a balanced budget even in theory. They only talk about it when it’s a convenient way to push for cutting programs that benefit the poor and the middle class. It’s sort of like how Republicans believe in “states rights” for policies they like (such as Arizona’s immigration laws) but completely abandon the principle for policies they don’t like (such as Montana’s election laws). Is it also like how they’re for small government when they’re in charge of the executive branch? Also, is it just me or is the Republican Party pretty much an outlier in terms of its platform and beliefs? I simply don’t see any other political party in the world that’s like it. I think you have to go back to the Greek city states to really see it. You had individual city states which governed themselves as opposed to centralization (“small government”), there was a free market economy in its primitive stage with a big division between the rich and the poor (free enterprise), an emphasis on abstract ideology and philosophy that was somewhat anti empirical (for example, science was viewed as less important than philosophy, morality and ethics, metaphysics), etc. I find these similarities rather puzzling, as the Greek form of government in the classical Greek period was a democracy, and not a republic. Anyone agree? :dubious: The reason I am a Republican is because they seem to really care about making the government responsive to the people, efficient, and I feel like they truly believe what they say, and it’s not like they did that many things that were bad, and they did do many things that ended up working out very well. But I can’t help but notice that their ideas are somehow almost like a faith based system that you can’t really question, you just have to accept it and trust that it will all work out. However, the lack of (modern) precedent is unsettling, and they seem to look at the Founding Fathers, the late 19th century, and (IMHO) 5th century Greece for their governing model, and even Marxism in that both Marxism and Communism eventually want to make government “as small as possible,” to the point where the very need for government itself will disappear. Is it just me, or does this vision of the free market in GOP ideology seem not unlike the Communist utopia of the “workers’ paradise,” _where ultimately politics disappears and becomes reduced to economics_, a sort of economic determinism in a sense. I fear that we’ve tried basing a system on an abstract ideology before, and that it didn’t work out the last time…and I wonder how someone could believe in free markets to the point that’s quasi-religious.. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-worse-if-the-democratic-or-republican-party-had-total-control/626321/48 "2012-06-26T22:36:24Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Which president pushed for the Medicare drug coverage without paying a nickel for it? Which president cut taxes and started two wars? You cannot make the argument that Democrats are the party of high deficits with any degree of sincerity. > [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > That doesn’t exactly bolster your argument. From 2003 to 2007, Republicans held the presidency and both houses of Congress, and passed things like Medicare Part D without paying for it. I hardly think you can blame the deficits in those years on dishonest Keynesians. And from 2008 until now, yeah, we really have been in a recovery. And I have always said that Republicans are partially to blame for the deficit as well. I think that Reganomics was as disasterous to the US spending as Roosevelt’s New Deal and the current Obama Recovery Act in that although they may have been needed at the time to deal with major economic issues, the policies carried over for decades afterwards when such high spending was not needed to stimulate the economy. However, the difference is that Republicans create deficit by lowering taxes and the Democrats create deficit by raising spending and I believe history shows that Democrats will tend to increase spending at a rate higher than increasing taxes and that is what is untenable. BobLibDem, you can criticize Bush all you want for going into Iraq/Afghanistan but don’t forget that the Democrat-controlled Congress voted to fund it and that we are still at war after 4 years of Obama so I think there is enough blame on both sides of the aisle for that money pit. Robot Arm, my point about Keynesians was not to absolve Republicans of their budgeting ineptitude. I was criticizing his point that Keynesians stop the deficit spending when were were out of recovery and I was showing him that historically we have have many years of deficit spending without being in a recovery economy. I also blame the Keynesians and their stimulus spending during normal economic times as the reason we’re in the position we are where the government HAS to be the major spender or the economy will tank . . . but that’s a different thread. ---
**Author:** ![Saint\_Cad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/saint_cad/32/18907_2.png) [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 10:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-worse-if-the-democratic-or-republican-party-had-total-control/626321/49 "2012-06-26T22:43:35Z")
[QUOTE=septimus] This Bill passed in the U.S. House of Representatives by a vote of 218 to 217. Every single Republican in the House voted against the Bill. The Bill went to the U.S. Senate where the vote was 50-50. Every single Republican Senator voted against the Bill. The Vice President ascended the dais of the Senate chamber and broke the tie; William Jefferson Clinton signed the Bill into Law;\*\* the biggest spending cuts in U.S. history were passed; and this budget ushered in an era of prosperity almost unmatched in modern U.S. history\*\*. [emphesis added] Let me repeat: Not even one single Republican Congressman voted for this Budget. Republicans natter about spending cuts, but on the biggest cut ever, every single Republican stood up and said “Nay”. Of course they would: Raising taxes on the rich (to a level still less than they were under Reagan!) was “class warfare” and would doom America! [/QUOTE] And the sad part is that not only do Republicans not appreciate what happened there, apparently Democrats don’t either. I took the liberty of highlighting one point from your quote in that Clinton’s budget involved spending cuts and not only did the economy not founder, it actually thrived. I think that lesson is lost on current Democrats that think any spending cuts at anytime (Recovery Act or not) will undermine the economy and send the country into a financial apocalypse. ---
**Author:** ![Revtim](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/revtim/32/1042_2.png) [@Revtim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revtim)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-worse-if-the-democratic-or-republican-party-had-total-control/626321/50 "2012-06-26T22:54:56Z")
Until the religious right are severed from the Republican party, giving them total control would make this country a theocracy in all but name only. Hell, maybe in name too. They’ll just call it “ceremonial deism” when they rename the USA to “The United Holy States Of Jesus”. ---
**Author:** ![Robot\_Arm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/robot_arm/32/18280_2.png) [@Robot\_Arm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robot_Arm)\ **Post date:** [June 26, 2012, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-worse-if-the-democratic-or-republican-party-had-total-control/626321/51 "2012-06-26T23:31:19Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > However, the difference is that Republicans create deficit by lowering taxes and the Democrats create deficit by raising spending and I believe history shows that Democrats will tend to increase spending at a rate higher than increasing taxes and that is what is untenable. What history leads you to this conclusion? The stimulus and auto bailout were one-time events, to deal with extraordinary circumstances. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act includes cuts to Medicare to mitigate the cost. Seriously, what was the last big-spending program enacted by Democrats? What’s in their current agenda that you think will raise spending so dramatically? > [@](#): > > Robot Arm, my point about Keynesians was not to absolve Republicans of their budgeting ineptitude. I was criticizing his point that Keynesians stop the deficit spending when were were out of recovery and I was showing him that historically we have have many years of deficit spending without being in a recovery economy. I’m not asking you to absolve Republicans, I’m asking anyone to defend blaming Democrats. It’s hardly fair to accuse them of not following through on Keynesianism during those times when they were not in the political majority. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Captor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/f17d59/32.png) [@Evil\_Captor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Captor)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2012, 12:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-worse-if-the-democratic-or-republican-party-had-total-control/626321/52 "2012-06-27T00:16:57Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#): > > And the sad part is that not only do Republicans not appreciate what happened there, apparently Democrats don’t either. I took the liberty of highlighting one point from your quote in that Clinton’s budget involved spending cuts and not only did the economy not founder, it actually thrived. I think that lesson is lost on current Democrats that think any spending cuts at anytime (Recovery Act or not) will undermine the economy and send the country into a financial apocalypse. In the last four years of budget disagreements, Democrats have REPEATEDLY offered spending cuts, so long as they were paired with raising taxes, and the Republicans REFUSED to listen. So your argument … fails. ---
**Author:** ![supery00n](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/5f9b8f/32.png) [@supery00n](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/supery00n)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2012, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-worse-if-the-democratic-or-republican-party-had-total-control/626321/53 "2012-06-27T00:24:07Z")
> [@Robot\_Arm](#): > > What history leads you to this conclusion? The stimulus and auto bailout were one-time events, to deal with extraordinary circumstances. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act includes cuts to Medicare to mitigate the cost. Seriously, what was the last big-spending program enacted by Democrats? What’s in their current agenda that you think will raise spending so dramatically? > > I’m not asking you to absolve Republicans, I’m asking anyone to defend blaming Democrats. It’s hardly fair to accuse them of not following through on Keynesianism during those times when they were not in the political majority. I’m not directly involved in this dialogue, but just as a side comment, on the first segment of your post, I find it more frustrating that the Democrats seem to come across as being indifferent to inefficiencies in their programs which just add up to more costs. They’re willing to support cuts to their programs, but that’s actually not the point. The point is to cut costs while giving the same quality of service, or improving the quality of service at the same cost. I think someone said this: it’s not necessarily how big or small government is, it’s how well it works and how responsive it is to the actual, sometimes changing needs of the people at any size. Their general attitude seems to be: _"Stop asking questions, we’re doing things the way we do now because it’s the best way to do it. Just pay your taxes, and we’ll provide the services._ There’s no sense of self-critique where the Democratic leaders look at their own programs and try to proactively improve them with the experience and feedback that’s there. I mean, if you’re going to be the party of strong, active government, then it makes sense politically, it would seem, to make that government function at a level that makes us feel…pleasantly surprised and satisfied." Maybe I’m totally wrong, and the government does things really well, and we just don’t get it because we’re misinformed or don’t really understand how hard or complicated administration is? ---
**Author:** ![AHunter3](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ahunter3/32/368_2.png) [@AHunter3](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AHunter3)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2012, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-worse-if-the-democratic-or-republican-party-had-total-control/626321/54 "2012-06-27T01:49:40Z")
A serious attempt at a serious answer, just for the heck of it. (I guess that makes it a nonserious reason) — • In a loose and floppy (and admittedly uncited) sense, I think the Democratic Party and its leadership thinks that it does not want total control; it believes it wants some version of “power to the people” and hence wants the populace to hold the reins of power. As long as the People don’t do horribly wrong things with that power, like oppress other people, vulnerable minorities and whatnot. Or disenfranchise themselves by choosing laws that would make impositions upon freedoms that we should all have. Or make other silly badly-chosen decisions. So, umm, well, it’s kinda important to the Democratic Party that some kind of elite leadership makes sure the People use their power appropriately. They don’t want to vest them with some godawful horrid hegemonic POWER or anything, but it’s important to ensure proper and fair outcomes, that’s all. Meanwhile, the Republican Party and its leadership is considerably more blunt and honest about it: they want sufficient control to make things the way they’re s’posed to be. I mean, they wouldn’t abuse it or anything, but, hell, right is right, and when you’re in favor of what’s right, you’re right, so you have the right to step forth and right those wrongs and separate right from wrong and step up and do what’s right, you know? And to that end, any necessary seizing of power is, well, you know, right. Right? • If asked (and I was!) to visualize an autocracy in the hands of either political party, I see the Republicans in unchallenged power as ersatz parents, know-it-alls who try to be fair but are absolutely convinced of the correctness of their own determination of right from wrong. Moralistic. Not great, not fun, but a familiar motif with lots of historical references. The Democrats would be sneakier salespeople, trying to run their Brave New World like Aldous Huxley, with indoctrination, the power of social unacceptability to limit inappropriate viewpoints, with lots and lots and lots of prominent lip service to autonomy and against coercion in all its forms. Instead of the blatant determination that you are espousing wrongful and wicked thoughts and must be forcibly stopped, they’d invest the energy to spin their interventions as something that needed to be done FOR you for YOUR OWN GOOD or else they’d orchestrate a massive pushback by people who would denounce what you were doing as coercive towards THEM, that YOU were a person seizing unequal and unfair power over other people. • On balance, I think the Democratic Party would be more dangerous via being sneakier and more condescendingly nasty in its paternalism. So I choose the Republicans as my autocrats. ---
**Author:** ![Snupzilla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/54ee81/32.png) [@Snupzilla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snupzilla)\ **Post date:** [June 27, 2012, 4:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-worse-if-the-democratic-or-republican-party-had-total-control/626321/55 "2012-06-27T04:48:53Z")
Democrats. An entire Senate full of Democrats still couldn’t pull together a super majority even if there was no opposition party. They’d waste time and money and little would get fixed but at the end of the day they’d be mostly harmless. An all Republican government would be scary because not only would they agree on their bad ideas but they would take turns trying to one up each other on making them worse. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-would-be-worse-if-the-democratic-or-republican-party-had-total-control/626321.md?page=2)