Republicans vs. Democrats - what's the difference/ where do they come from?

[Boudicca]

Ok. I have been following discussions concerning Republican and Democratic views in this forum.
Some thing I still haven't understood is where did the Republican and Democtratic party come from and what are the views and political opinions in which they do differ essentially?

If I would ask you the question:
"What does it mean for you to be "Republican" and in how far would you differ from what you call a "Democrats" viewpoint, what would you answer?" or

"What does it mean for you to be "Democrat" and in how far would you differ from what you call a "Republican" viewpoint, what would you answer?"

(I considered putting this into the Vestigia forum, but then reconsidered because it seems to have too much relevance for actual discussion)

edit: We need a UL here, quickly. I made a spelling mistake in topic title! Please help!
edit(2): the UL's are doing a fantastic job and have corrected the title within a minute! Thanks!

[the Black Prince]

being english, i can't really answer this question, i do instead have thios quote for you

"republicans like to have a big military, but do nothing with it. Democrats want a small military but send it everywhere"

or words to that effect...
though i guess Bush kinda disproves that...

[Kanaric]

They are both more the same than anything else, just the extremists who have nothing to do with the party is what makes it different.

[Boudicca]

@tBP: That is an impression I do get in germany too, even though democrats seemed to rather not send their military but their Tomahawk missiles and airforce around while Republicans make use of ground bound forces.

@kanaric: Then why this trouble about appointing supreme court judges? Is this just a "political" issue or are the roots going deeper?

[Big War Bird]

@kanaric: Then why this trouble about appointing supreme court judges? Is this just a "political" issue or are the roots going deeper?

The central issue in confirming judges for the Supreme Court is Abortion. For a couple of decades an the court has consistantly ruled the abortion is protected by the Constitution. However there are a couple of logical problems here. One abortion is not metioned at all in the Constitution. The right to an abortion is interpreted from the right to privacy. However there is no explicit right to privacy in the Constitution either. In short it takes a great deal of imagination to find a right to abortion in the Constitution.

This "imagination" is usual called judicial activism. To a supporter of judicial activism, judges should be moral arbitors charged with protecting certain rights (like abortion) from being infringed.

To a critic (like me) judicial activism flies in the face of democracy, judges are not moral arbitors, their duty is to faithfully interpret and apply the laws passed by the legislature. This also applies to the Constitution, they should not read into it hidden meaning. The should go by the original intent of the Framers. This is called Strict Constructionism.

in my view it all hinges on whether one trusts democracy or not. In the case of abortion, if the Supreme Court struck down the relevant precident (Roe v Wade), nothing would change. Abortion would still be legal. However it would now be up to the people, and not the courts, to decide what the law should be.

[Last Roman]

it is an intresting history to be sure. The Democrats ,originally the Democrat-Republican Party founded by Thomas Jefferson, were in favor of states rights and a less powerful national government. Opposing them were the Whigs, those in favor of a strong federal government. The Democrats-Republicans became the Democrats with the ascension of Andrew Jackson and championed themselves as the "people's party" (though they hardly were). Im not sure when the Whigs fell and the Republicans took their place. I think it was around the time of Abraham Lincoln (correct me if Im wrong). Initially it was the Republicans who favored freeing the slaves and opposed by the southern Democrats (Dixiecrats). The majority of the south was Democratic because they saw the Republican party as favoring the middle-upper class northern industrialists. Overtime that changed as the Democrats started to favor more civil liberties for the blacks. It was in the early 40's that the two parties started to become what they are today.

[Farnan]

Actually the modern Democrats are descended from FDR and not Thomas Jefferson...The modern Republicans are sort of split. Half of them, the Paleo-Cons are descended from the days of Harding and Coolidge, and the Neo-Cons are descended from the days of Nixon, I believe...

[Last Roman]

Actually the modern Democrats are descended from FDR and not Thomas Jefferson

I said that

It was in the early 40's [when FDR was president] that the two parties started to become what they are today.

[Patton85]

Democrats are portrayed as being the party for minority rights, but it is hardly true. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were passed largely with Republican votes. However, the American President LBJ (D) did support the act. The modern conservatives descend from Barry Goldwater (R) Ariz. who was more of a Libertarian-Conservative. But the Conservative movement is quite varied. The Democrats to descend from FDR and that is why they support quasi-socialism. Modern American Liberalism is not equivalent to Classical Liberalism, which actually resembles the Conservatives more closely, but not exclusively. Liberalism professes a belief in Free Market Capitalism and personal liberty.

[Kanaric]

Then why this trouble about appointing supreme court judges? Is this just a "political" issue or are the roots going deeper?

Their is no trouble, really, most of the the they are either appointed to appease the extremists and are then cut down or they appoint someone that a majority of people approve of and then the extremists complain about it.

The parties still have to appeal to their "base" aka extremists.

It was in the early 40's [when FDR was president] that the two parties started to become what they are today.

Even before that, FDR was the final blow to the change. It started after factory labor and things like that were involved. The chrstian party at the time, the democrats, didn't like things such as child labor which started most of the other laws as well.

and the Neo-Cons are descended from the days of Nixon

Neocons started more from reagan, Nixon was more pre-neocon. He started programs like food stamps and expanded other things such as welfare and was "softer" on commies.

[Nationalist_Cause]

Neocons started more from reagan, Nixon was more pre-neocon. He started programs like food stamps and expanded other things such as welfare and was "softer" on commies.

Reagan was a neocon. Robert Nisbet provides an accurate description of him:

“President Reagan’s deepest soul is not Republican-conservative but New Deal-Second World War Democrat. Thus his well noted preference for citing FDR and Kennedy as noble precedents for his actions rather than Coolidge, Hoover, or even Eisenhower. The word ‘revolution’ springs lightly from his lips, for anything from tax reform to narcotics prosecution. Reagan’s passion for crusades, moral and military, is scarcely American-conservative.”

[Kanaric]

Reagan was a neocon. Robert Nisbet provides an accurate description of him:

Yes I know, he started the neocons pretty much.

Nixon CERTAINLY is not a neocon though, lol.

[Nationalist_Cause]

Yes I know, he started the neocons pretty much.

Nixon CERTAINLY is not a neocon though, lol.

I don't think he did. I've read that some neocons began to formulate their new ideology in the years following WW2 up through the sixties. Just because they had no president in office doesn't mean they weren't there.

[Kanaric]

I don't think he did. I've read that some neocons began to formulate their new ideology in the years following WW2 up through the sixties. Just because they had no president in office doesn't mean they weren't there.

I see, i dont know a lot about the movement, usually when anyone talks about them they refer to reagan as the founding father so I just assume.

Who would be a neocon post-ww2? edit: Should rephase, who would you consider to be one of the first real neocons?

[Patton85]

Neocons are former liberals that reject most elements of liberalism now. However, they do believe in a Wilsonian view of the universality of democracy. Another expression for a neocon is a "liberal that has been mugged by reality". That phrase is commonly used to describe Neocons.

[Bwaho]

to me they are two identical parties and the presidential candidates are brought forward by interest groups (yes, corporations). At the same time you can't forbid people to finance their canditate.

oh well, at least you americans don't vote for communist scum like my country does.

[Nationalist_Cause]

I see, i dont know a lot about the movement, usually when anyone talks about them they refer to reagan as the founding father so I just assume.

Who would be a neocon post-ww2? edit: Should rephase, who would you consider to be one of the first real neocons?

Upon further review of the subject, I think you were right. I've found where I read the information. Here is a quote:

Who are they, the neoconservatives? The first generation were ex-Trotskyites, socialists, leftists, and liberals who backed FDR, Truman, JFK, and LBJ. When the Democratic party was captured by McGovern in 1972 - on a platform of "Come Home America!" - these Cold War liberals found themselves isolated and ignored in their own party. Adrift, they rafted over to the Republican Party and were pulled aboard as conservatism's long voyage was culminating in the triumph of Reagan.

-Patrick J. Buchanan
Where the Right Went Wrong

I believe Irving Kristol was one of the first. According to the same text, he identified himself as a Trotskyite in the 30's.

[Last Roman]

I disagree about the global warming

anyhoo, there is already a thread about that

[Fedaiken]

The Democratic Pary is definitely older than the Republican Party, though I'm not 100% positive on the exact origin of the Dems. As for the Republicans, they were first formed with the canidacy of Theodore Rosevelt in a three canidate election. That was in the 20s. Back in the early days it was the Federalists and the Whigs.

Now, to answer the thread's questions, which are actually pretty hard, as I think the fact that everyone only thinks of the Democrats and the Republicans as the only American political parties is the root of the problem. George Washington, actually, warned that if anything was going to bring this country down it would be a bipartisan government. I think we need a strong Mid-Ground third party to come to the forefront of politics, and although I am a member of the Green Party, I think that the Liberatarian party is the one to do it. They are the perfect party for those people in the middle ground, with the "liberals" being way too lovey dovey help everyone and spend our money on special interest crap to the "conservatives" being way too only our way, and more power to the Federal Govt to take away our civil Liberties. The Liberatarians look to return power to the states and deflate the bloated monster that is our Federal Government, and abolish victimless crimes where we spend a ton of taxpayers' money to put people in jail for hurting themselves! Anyways, if they had more enviromentalist views I would still be a member as they are actually growing to the point that they might be able to make a difference. But, alas, the Green Party is the only political group that seems to care about taking care of our world around us as a major priority.

So, in conclusion, if you've been on the political party fence, and want to look at a reasonable, well thought out, and populated party that is on the up and coming forefront of ACTUAL change, check out http://www.lp.org/

[Atheist Peace]

As for the Republicans, they were first formed with the canidacy of Theodore Rosevelt in a three canidate election. That was in the 20s. Back in the early days it was the Federalists and the Whigs.

Actually, the Republican party was formed in the mid-1800's, as a liberal, anti-slavery party. Theodore Roosevelt broke away from the Republicans in the election you're talking about, Taft was running for the Reps. The Democrats are older though.

The differences between the two parties do not exist. They take adverse positions to continue the stupid rivalry that you all buy into. It is almost exactly like the superpower nations in Nineteen Eithy-Four, they constantly "fight" in order to prop each other up, and continue the "war" because it works well for them internally, and keeps things going as they are. This is how the two party system works, some of the politicians actually believe they are trying to win and accomplish their "goals," but others know what it really is. The Republicans need to lose seats in Congress this year, or else they'll be in trouble, the only way to destroy the parties is to give them the power they claim to desire. I'm not trying to suggest that they don't love power, but if either side gets too much, they will eventually implode and threaten the system. The system works perfectly for the politicians, and not at all for the people.

People are still stupid enough to cement the two party system, year after year. People say "I would vote for a third party, but I'd be throwing my vote away! (!!!!111!1!!!11!!1!)" and perpetuate the system. People are too naive and stupid to make a true change.