An honest, serious discussion about the Democratic and Republican Parties

[All Along The Watchtower]

Let's have an honest, serious discussion of what the Democratic and Republican Parties stand for.

Democrats:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Republicans:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Democrats: http://www.democrats.org/issues
Republicans: http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Preamble.htm

[Wonkish1]

Let's have an honest, serious discussion of what the Democratic and Republican Parties stand for.

Democrats:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Republicans:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Democrats: http://www.democrats.org/issues
Republicans: http://www.gop.com/2008Platform/Preamble.htm

I'll at least give you credit for actually posting any depiction of the GOP that is actually in a positive light this time.

I will say that both of these rely on a lot of flowery language that has little practical meaning though.

[Stardust]

Let us begin with the Democrats.

I call them the "kings of regulatory capture", and that seems to be their entire reason for existence: to whip up public sentiment in favor of 'tighter regulations of industry', then turn the reigns of the regulatory institutions they create over to the businesses they oversee.

Howard Zinn, of all people, noted this thoroughly:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And what of the opposite side of the industrial coin, the workers?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It is clear that the regulatory regime of the New Deal was always, and to a great extent remains, the servant of the industrial order it pitted itself against in popular rhetoric.

[All Along The Watchtower]

Goof post there, Stardust.

Economically, it seems that the Republican Party has always represented the interests of the growth industries-whether it be manufacturing in the late 1800s, railroads and the financial sector in the same time period, the financial sector in the 1920s, the whole "service" sector in the 1980s...the list goes on.

On the Democratic side, the economic interests represented have been an odd combination of interests, big and small, who opposed the Republican Party's growth-industry promoting programs outright, or who wanted a "fairer" distribution of the economic pie, at least, partly out of appeals to "social justice" but also partly out of a recognition for long-term stability in the capitalist economy. Democrats have historically included urban immigrant political machines in the North, Southern planters and aristocrats, Western farmers and ranchers, and a small but influential number of pro-business reformers. The one thing uniting all of these diverse constituencies was opposition to the Republican Party's program.

Nowadays, the Republican Party is dominated by pro-growth "conservatives" and is most popular amongst small businessmen, middle managers, executives, the military, evangelical Protestants, conservative Catholics, commercial bankers, regional business elites...people who, for one reason or another or many,  have an unrelenting resentment towards the federal government. The Democrats, on the other hand, are dominated by professionals, intellectuals, labor leaders, party activists, "good-government" reformers, entertainment and media moguls....people who, for whatever reason, feel that the Democrats will have policies that will lead to "fairness" and "social justice."

The biggest difference I see between the two parties, is this: the Republicans feel that the private sector and the federal government are competitors. The Democrats feel that they are partners.

[Yelnoc]

The biggest difference I see between the two parties, is this: the Republicans feel that the private sector and the federal government are competitors. The Democrats feel that they are partners.

I would say that sums up their economic philosophies well.  Obviously the social policies are different, but I have always been of the position that "social issues" are merely red flags used to distract the bull of the electorate, rather than core beliefs held by GOP politicians and other "elites."  Until 2010 that is.  It seems that GOP rhetoric has come back to bite them, as several congressman seem to actually believe some of the views they espouse.

[fezzyfestoon]

Honest? Serious? They stand for money. Both of them. They are for-profit organizations that promote individuals that can make them more money. And those individuals are there to make money. That's all they stand for. Their platforms are little more than marketing aimed at appealing to peoples wallets in hopes they'll donate money in hopes their causes are actually addressed. They won't be except for the occasional publicity move to prove their worth. Neither stands for anything of any substance.

[TJ in Oregon]

I would say that sums up their economic philosophies well.  Obviously the social policies are different, but I have always been of the position that "social issues" are merely red flags used to distract the bull of the electorate, rather than core beliefs held by GOP politicians and other "elites."  Until 2010 that is.  It seems that GOP rhetoric has come back to bite them, as several congressman seem to actually believe some of the views they espouse.

Of course many of the Republican elites don’t actually believe half the stuff they say when they go around trumpeting family values at church festivals and kissing babies. That’s the nature of the game. Most of the GOP doesn’t actually give a crap about social issues (or the state of the country for that matter). Just look at Newt Gingrich telling his ex-wife “It doesn’t matter what I do; it only matters what I say” (at least according to her). Notice the approach that Wonkish has taken on taken on this site in regards to social issues: largely avoid them. Look at his response in this thread for example. (I am assuming that Wonkish is representative of the Republican leadership for some reason even though it’s almost certainly unfair).

This argument has the ability to make me occasionally consider why I remain a member of the Republican Party. I mean, my economic views alone would probably make me an independent who is persuadable by either party. But, social issues, which most of the party cares very little about and those who do tend to be of the evangelical crazy variety, are the primary factor in determining my partisan support. Yet, no matter how indifferent the GOP is to social conservatism, unlike the Democrats, they are not openly hostile. The Republican Party, on the margins, almost always prefers less drug legalization, sexual liberalization, abortion, etc. It’s a game; I know it is, but what choice do I have? The two-party system is a manipulative tool designed to pin people into a specific interest group, some defined set of persons whose interests are then given faux attention as an unwritten agreement for votes.

One of my father’s rules for politics was that “In politics, the enemy of your enemy is your friend”. The two-party system provides a framework for the preservation of socially conservative aims beyond what would otherwise be possible. As long as the Republican Party is reliant on social conservative votes, it will be forced to give lip service to socially conservative ideas and stage symbolic votes on them despite a significant portion of the party remaining indifferent. I remember trying to redraw the map of Ohio’s Congressional districts when I first came to this site, working often with Torie. Both of us were drawing them with fairly different motivations, yet still working toward a common goal. That’s part of what politics is all about: joining forces to work together in so much as our interests overlap despite wildly different reasons for doing so. Remaining within the party is a transaction: my support in exchange for some service. However, I do need to always remain cognizant in the scope of party membership of the question, Am I playing the game or is the game playing me? Are my views, determined outside the scope of the political theatre and then systematically adopted on the basis of pragmatism, driving the views of the party or is the party driving my views?

Sometimes I think it may be time for me to get off this site and out of politics altogether. The older I get the more I believe the way to respond to most problems in the world has little to do with politics and much more to deal with my interactions and connections to individual people. That’s not to say I don’t get angry about losing political battles (or any struggle in life). Of course I do. If I didn’t I wouldn’t care. But, my real goal in dealing with things is to be a firm voice of conviction for what I believe in no matter where I go and no matter what happens. I lash out less now than I used to and more just stand by my friends with a wry smile as people do stupid crap. I am a dark, pessimistic person in many regards, yet, I have learned that you just never know what might happen and can only stand by patiently in case it does.

Unless the US political system experiences another serious realignment, it will be hard to imagine me as anything other than a partisan Republican despite realizing what a corrupt cabal the GOP truly is. As long as I see a shred of daylight between the two sides I will remain on my current one.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Honest? Serious? They stand for money. Both of them. They are for-profit organizations that promote individuals that can make them more money. And those individuals are there to make money. That's all they stand for. Their platforms are little more than marketing aimed at appealing to peoples wallets in hopes they'll donate money in hopes their causes are actually addressed. They won't be except for the occasional publicity move to prove their worth. Neither stands for anything of any substance.

This is unfortunately where we still differ, lately. You're right, both parties are largely corrupted by money, and stand as for-profit organizations that favor entrenched interests. But one party is far worse in that regard, and the other party still at least tries to do things.

[freepcrusher]

well the difference is that growing up, I've always viewed the GOP as the party that sounded like my parents. By that I mean: "Time to be responsible"; ""You're a bum" "Do you realize how much I have to pay for $$$" etc.

I kind of see the GOP as a parent figure and like a parent, the GOP wants you to grow up to be like them. But the GOP's idealization of what it means to be an american is insulting to me, and I want to live by my own rules. I, like many people who vote democrat, aren't really a democrat as much as we aren't republicans.

[Stardust]

It's funny you ought to mention that, TJ In Cleve, because, despite the fact we differ so wildly on most issues, we're basically in the same camp.

Of course, there isn't even a third-party that could represent my own views, coming as they do from a classical liberal tradition long since abandoned by those who claim to want to conserve classical liberalism.

 Before about 2007 I considered myself a bog-standard conservative, and, whilst I was always opposed to Bush's wars and Bush's social conservatism, his pretty flagrant corporatism never bothered me. Because, you see, at that time I'd convinced myself that economic liberty and the well-being of the corporation were synonymous.

How wrong I was. It took his cheerleading of the bailouts to show to me how ideologically unsound Bush-style 'conservatism' actually was, insofar as it placed the material prosperity of a few members of the economic elite above a genuine commitment to free-markets.

I would like to think a similar realization has hit the Left in recent years, watching as they have Obama consistently sell out to Wall Street time and again, almost whenever the opportunity is given to him. And the way in which he sells out - via regulations designed to be captured from the start; via selective subsidies that benefit the established supply-side to the detriment of the taxpayer - ought to be thoroughly criticized by partisans of both political 'wings'.

That's why those who feel as we do have got to force a re-alignment. But if you want to bring together like-minded persons from both ends of the spectrum, as I do, and for whatever end you have in mind, you have to be prepared to actively reach out to them, to articulate in your own language why your concerns mesh with theirs. You have to devote time and effort and energy to it. There is no other way.

[Brandon H]

Pretty good discussion here. Especially these two points:

Obviously the social policies are different, but I have always been of the position that "social issues" are merely red flags used to distract the bull of the electorate, rather than core beliefs held by GOP politicians and other "elites."

Honest? Serious? They stand for money. Both of them. They are for-profit organizations that promote individuals that can make them more money. And those individuals are there to make money. That's all they stand for. Their platforms are little more than marketing aimed at appealing to peoples wallets in hopes they'll donate money in hopes their causes are actually addressed. They won't be except for the occasional publicity move to prove their worth. Neither stands for anything of any substance.

I would also add they stand for power besides money, with the two being very much linked together.

At the end of the day can anyone honestly say that either party represents them more than 90%? If so, are either very well connected or delusional.

[dead0man]

Nowadays, the Republican Party is dominated by pro-growth "conservatives" and is most popular amongst small businessmen, middle managers, executives, the military, evangelical Protestants, conservative Catholics, commercial bankers, regional business elites...people who, for one reason or another or many, have an unrelenting resentment towards the federal government.

The military isn't as Republican as conventional wisdom would lead you to believe.  Especially among the enlisted.  Also, why would someone with "an unrelenting resentment towards the federal government" join the muscle of the Federal government?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well the first part was good, but I don't see how you think Dems want govt and the "private sector" to be partners when no Dem voter I've ever met has felt that way.  They think the govt is the best protection from the evils of everything, even government.  I suppose if you really pervert the definition of "partner".

[Stardust]

Also, why would someone with "an unrelenting resentment towards the federal government" join the muscle of the Federal government?

Because, at bottom, conservative animus towards the State (as distinct from libertarian animus) exists only when the State is perceived as being in the service of economic and cultural minorities. I expect that, as America conservatizes further, the approach the Right takes towards the government will shift along with it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Another bit of unconscious hypocrisy. Democratic voters are certainly antipathetic towards industry. Democratic politicians, on the other hand, base their entire view of economics on the notion that what's good for business is good for the worker as well. The Keynesian 'multiplier effect' rests on this assumption, after all. Where do you think every dollar the government spends on a public works project goes?

[dead0man]

Also, why would someone with "an unrelenting resentment towards the federal government" join the muscle of the Federal government?

Because, at bottom, conservative animus towards the State (as distinct from libertarian animus) exists only when the State is perceived as being in the service of economic and cultural minorities. I expect that, as America conservatizes further, the approach the Right takes towards the government will shift along with it.

How 'bout you dumb that down a little?....unless you are saying something like "righties only hate the govt when they think they are going to help a brown?...maybe?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Another bit of unconscious hypocrisy. Democratic voters are certainly antipathetic towards industry. Democratic politicians, on the other hand, base their entire view of economics on the notion that what's good for business is good for the worker as well. The Keynesian 'multiplier effect' rests on this assumption, after all. Where do you think every dollar the government spends on a public works project goes?
[/quote]Well, it's going to vary a lot depending on what the job is, but I'd say a lot of it goes to greasing future palms, graft, corruption, union coffers, taxes...certainly not enough goes to the jackasses actually doing the work.  But yes, you are right, people that vote Dem aren't getting what they are voting for.

[Stardust]

How 'bout you dumb that down a little?....unless you are saying something like "righties only hate the govt when they think they are going to help a brown?...maybe?

Why sugarcoat it? That's exactly correct. The popular, quasi-cynical (yet strangely idealistic) response is to argue that committed conservatives are equal opportunity antipaths. But I don't buy it.

Give it eight or twelve years under a ruling conservative paradigm, just enough time for memories of a liberal activist government to really fade from collective memory, and I believe the basic attitude on the Right to the government will begin to change. Political positions are largely historical creations; even the most wild-eyed crusader for certain positions had, at some point, adopted them in response to what has gone on before.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When the government spends money to build a bridge, the vast majority of it does not, in fact, go into the sweaty palms of union officials. It goes right into where it seems like it ought to go: into the pockets of concrete manufacturers and steel magnates.

Which is most of the problem.

[dead0man]

How 'bout you dumb that down a little?....unless you are saying something like "righties only hate the govt when they think they are going to help a brown?...maybe?

Why sugarcoat it? That's exactly correct. The popular, quasi-cynical (yet strangely idealistic) response is to argue that committed conservatives are equal opportunity antipaths. But I don't buy it.

I guess that fits if you think most righties are racists, I don't think that.  Enough are to notice, no argument there, but I don't think the run of the mill GOP voter in a suburb (or anywhere really) is out and out racist anymore than your average run of the mill Dem voter in the same location.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When the government spends money to build a bridge, the vast majority of it does not, in fact, go into the sweaty palms of union officials. It goes right into where it seems like it ought to go: into the pockets of concrete manufacturers and steel magnates.

Which is most of the problem.
[/quote]I never suggested the vast majority went to union officials, but thanks anyway.  Yes, you are probably right on the second half though..... that an unfair amount of the monies goes into the pockets of a select few in most of these cases.  Why?  Because they grease the wheels better, who greases the most wheels?  guess

[Stardust]

I guess that fits if you think most righties are racists, I don't think that.  Enough are to notice, no argument there, but I don't think the run of the mill GOP voter in a suburb (or anywhere really) is out and out racist anymore than your average run of the mill Dem voter in the same location.

I never said they were racist, per se. I think the actual phenomenon is far more complicated than that. If I had to pin it down, I'd say it's something like psychological projection: I do this, my group does this; ergo, you ought to do this, and your group ought to do this.

That's not limited to the political Right, of course. But it seems more fervent in them than in other groups. And it'll lend itself well to conservatives when they decide that liberal government is well and truly dead and that they can begin instead to use the government for their own brand of activism with as much vigor as they'd like. That'll require the generation that has spent its time on the Right feeling itself persecuted to begin dying off, though.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The ultimate point I was getting at is that it's utterly self-refuting for an anti-capitalist to want to squelch capitalism by recourse to a government that subsidizes capitalists.

'Course, most Democrats, and all elected Democratic politicians, aren't anti-capitalist by any stretch of the imagination. Then again, getting their opponents to admit it is like pulling a horses teeth, because of the bizarre way in which American politics got flipped on its head during the Cold War.

[tpfkaw]

The Democratic and Republican parties stand for murder and evil and always have, though possibly less so at certain points.

[fezzyfestoon]

Honest? Serious? They stand for money. Both of them. They are for-profit organizations that promote individuals that can make them more money. And those individuals are there to make money. That's all they stand for. Their platforms are little more than marketing aimed at appealing to peoples wallets in hopes they'll donate money in hopes their causes are actually addressed. They won't be except for the occasional publicity move to prove their worth. Neither stands for anything of any substance.

This is unfortunately where we still differ, lately. You're right, both parties are largely corrupted by money, and stand as for-profit organizations that favor entrenched interests. But one party is far worse in that regard, and the other party still at least tries to do things.

There are certainly more members of the Democratic Party that are less swayed by the Washington vampires than there are in the Republican Party, but the organizations in general are most to blame. They are the ones with the stranglehold on our government so there's little the good members can do to change the slow murder of our nation by its leaders.

[memphis]

well the difference is that growing up, I've always viewed the GOP as the party that sounded like my parents. By that I mean: "Time to be responsible"; ""You're a bum" "Do you realize how much I have to pay for $$$" etc.

No. Your parents care about you. The GOP would rather you drop dead than get government health insurance. The GOP couldn't be any less like your parents. Unless you have some really messed up family.

[patrick1]

well the difference is that growing up, I've always viewed the GOP as the party that sounded like my parents. By that I mean: "Time to be responsible"; ""You're a bum" "Do you realize how much I have to pay for $$$" etc.

No. Your parents care about you. The GOP would rather you drop dead than get government health insurance. The GOP couldn't be any less like your parents. Unless you have some really messed up family.

Haha.  It is the tough love school, Memphis.  Sink or swim, pull yourself up by your boot straps et al.   I bought into that for a long time.   

[opebo]

The Democratic and Republican parties stand for murder and evil and always have, though possibly less so at certain points.

It would be more useful to note that the upper class engages in murder and 'evil' through the capitalist system, and that these 'political parties' are mere tools towards that genocidal end.  Blaming these parties would be like blaming the gun for the murder - sure, you should ban the gun, but you also need to guillotine the owning class.

[memphis]

well the difference is that growing up, I've always viewed the GOP as the party that sounded like my parents. By that I mean: "Time to be responsible"; ""You're a bum" "Do you realize how much I have to pay for $$$" etc.

No. Your parents care about you. The GOP would rather you drop dead than get government health insurance. The GOP couldn't be any less like your parents. Unless you have some really messed up family.

Haha.  It is the tough love school, Memphis.  Sink or swim, pull yourself up by your boot straps et al.   I bought into that for a long time.   

When the stuff hits the fan and one has stage 4 cancer, I feel confident even the most tough love parents would want their kid on gov't health insurance vs getting no treatment. The GOP has made clear that this is not their preference. I'll omit my final statement about the GOP to prevent death points. But it wouldn't be excessive hyperbole. It would be the truth.

[LastVoter]

The Democratic and Republican parties stand for murder and evil and always have, though possibly less so at certain points.

It would be more useful to note that the upper class engages in murder and 'evil' through the capitalist system, and that these 'political parties' are mere tools towards that genocidal end.  Blaming these parties would be like blaming the gun for the murder - sure, you should ban the gun, but you also need to guillotine the owning class.

Whats up with the obsession with guillotines?

[Wonkish1]

I would say that sums up their economic philosophies well.  Obviously the social policies are different, but I have always been of the position that "social issues" are merely red flags used to distract the bull of the electorate, rather than core beliefs held by GOP politicians and other "elites."  Until 2010 that is.  It seems that GOP rhetoric has come back to bite them, as several congressman seem to actually believe some of the views they espouse.

Of course many of the Republican elites don’t actually believe half the stuff they say when they go around trumpeting family values at church festivals and kissing babies. That’s the nature of the game. Most of the GOP doesn’t actually give a crap about social issues (or the state of the country for that matter). Just look at Newt Gingrich telling his ex-wife “It doesn’t matter what I do; it only matters what I say” (at least according to her). Notice the approach that Wonkish has taken on taken on this site in regards to social issues: largely avoid them. Look at his response in this thread for example. (I am assuming that Wonkish is representative of the Republican leadership for some reason even though it’s almost certainly unfair).

This argument has the ability to make me occasionally consider why I remain a member of the Republican Party. I mean, my economic views alone would probably make me an independent who is persuadable by either party. But, social issues, which most of the party cares very little about and those who do tend to be of the evangelical crazy variety, are the primary factor in determining my partisan support. Yet, no matter how indifferent the GOP is to social conservatism, unlike the Democrats, they are not openly hostile. The Republican Party, on the margins, almost always prefers less drug legalization, sexual liberalization, abortion, etc. It’s a game; I know it is, but what choice do I have? The two-party system is a manipulative tool designed to pin people into a specific interest group, some defined set of persons whose interests are then given faux attention as an unwritten agreement for votes.

One of my father’s rules for politics was that “In politics, the enemy of your enemy is your friend”. The two-party system provides a framework for the preservation of socially conservative aims beyond what would otherwise be possible. As long as the Republican Party is reliant on social conservative votes, it will be forced to give lip service to socially conservative ideas and stage symbolic votes on them despite a significant portion of the party remaining indifferent. I remember trying to redraw the map of Ohio’s Congressional districts when I first came to this site, working often with Torie. Both of us were drawing them with fairly different motivations, yet still working toward a common goal. That’s part of what politics is all about: joining forces to work together in so much as our interests overlap despite wildly different reasons for doing so. Remaining within the party is a transaction: my support in exchange for some service. However, I do need to always remain cognizant in the scope of party membership of the question, Am I playing the game or is the game playing me? Are my views, determined outside the scope of the political theatre and then systematically adopted on the basis of pragmatism, driving the views of the party or is the party driving my views?

Sometimes I think it may be time for me to get off this site and out of politics altogether. The older I get the more I believe the way to respond to most problems in the world has little to do with politics and much more to deal with my interactions and connections to individual people. That’s not to say I don’t get angry about losing political battles (or any struggle in life). Of course I do. If I didn’t I wouldn’t care. But, my real goal in dealing with things is to be a firm voice of conviction for what I believe in no matter where I go and no matter what happens. I lash out less now than I used to and more just stand by my friends with a wry smile as people do stupid crap. I am a dark, pessimistic person in many regards, yet, I have learned that you just never know what might happen and can only stand by patiently in case it does.

Unless the US political system experiences another serious realignment, it will be hard to imagine me as anything other than a partisan Republican despite realizing what a corrupt cabal the GOP truly is. As long as I see a shred of daylight between the two sides I will remain on my current one.

TJ as someone who is more focused on fiscal issues than social issues(although I would still consider myself a social conservative just one that doesn't vocalize really at all) I have to say that I am in the minority in the party. Most are more social issue driven than fiscal issue driven and that includes the majority of congress. The only difference right now is that the economy has thrust fiscal issues to the forefront for the time being. It wont remain there and I'm okay admitting that soon enough the concerns of predominately social conservatives will soon dominate those of predominately fiscal conservatives.