Differences Between Republicans and Democrats

[-Conan the Barbarian-]

Discussion split from the"Your least favourite 'political' terms and phrases" thread, as it has merit as a separate discussion. -Gertrudius

Liberal because it usually describes someone who, unlike what the name implies, is not a lover of human liberty, but in reality is a statist.

Conservative because they don't conserve anything. They are another brand of statist.

Both of these labels are applied to supposedly rival groups of people. These gangs of American politics are made up of people who believe that the persons they are electing are philosophically opposed to each other. They are not however, but rather these political elites of the U.S. are statist to the core and everything that goes with Statism (such as imperialism).

The Republicans and Democrats do not have any significant philosophical differences. Both parties add to the size and monopoly of the state every election cycle. They only care about whether they have the power of a monopoly of violence that we call the state. So whether or not these labels I highlighted are accurate philosophically or not make little difference to the U.S. political elites. If these terms are vague and confusing or outright wrong, the better it is for them: the Cleptocrats of both gangs. They are criminals and nothing more.

[Astaroth]

@Conan: I see your point, but I think that is a simplification from a libertarian perspective. Claiming that two parties -- that are diametrically opposed to each other on many issues that millions of people care about -- are the same simply because they don't prioritise the one thing you seemingly care the most about (i.e. significantly reducing state influence) doesn't really hit the mark.

Similarly, I could argue from a strictly environmentalist perspective: both parties are the same because neither strongly fights against pollution or for environmental protection. Alternatively from a social democratic POV: neither of the party is really pursuing a strong, European-style social net for the weaker parts of society. Both of those examples would still apply even if you had your way and there was a strong libertarian party in the US.

In more abstract terms, parties are never going to entirely cater to every single opinion or point of view. This is obviously an even bigger problem in what is essentially a two-party system, but it exists in every democracy, really. However, this doesn't mean that the two major parties are the same. That's a conclusion one can only arrive at if he mostly or only cares about one single issue (e.g. the environment, libertarianism or socialism) and then gets annoyed when none of the major parties' positions on the topic is as extreme as what he believes in.

[-Conan the Barbarian-]

Astaroth, from a libertarian perspective: The two main parties each have certain core principles that would seemingly be for reducing state influence over our lives, such as Democrat's social liberties stances and Republican's economic liberties stances. What I am saying to you is that these issues are overshadowed by the enormous growth of the state and erosion of rights in the US under both Republicans and Democrats. This is something that is inevitable when there is a Democracy and especially one with nearly no choice in government. Both parties support the enormous spending on the military and imperialistic adventures. President Obama bombs more countries than even Bush. Both support enormous "bailouts": to corporations and welfare programs. Obamacare forces all Americans to purchase health insurance .
About the environment, what do you expect when there is a state? Property rights are not respected when the state feels that they have a right to own you and your property and give corporations the right to pollute your air water and destroy your property.
About the safety net: How much more rich and charitable would we be as a nation if there was no state to steal our money through taxation or inflation and then misallocate trillions to needless wars, policing non violent crimes, and giving billions to corporations and third world dictators? They are the very essence of corruption and immorality.

So to add one more to the list:

Political Parties, they should be called gangs like the crips and bloods.

[Astaroth]

Astaroth, from a libertarian perspective: The two main parties each have certain core principles that would seemingly be for reducing state influence over our lives, such as Democrat's social liberties stances and Republican's economic liberties stances. What I am saying to you is that these issues are overshadowed by the enormous growth of the state and erosion of rights in the US under both Republicans and Democrats. This is something that is inevitable when there is a Democracy and especially one with nearly no choice in government. Both parties support the enormous spending on the military and imperialistic adventures. President Obama bombs more countries than even Bush. Both support enormous "bailouts": to corporations and welfare programs. Obamacare forces all Americans to purchase health insurance .
About the environment, what do you expect when there is a state? Property rights are not respected when the state feels that they have a right to own you and your property and give corporations the right to pollute your air water and destroy your property.
About the safety net: How much more rich and charitable would we be as a nation if there was no state to steal our money through taxation or inflation and then misallocate trillions to needless wars, policing non violent crimes, and giving billions to corporations and third world dictators? They are the very essence of corruption and immorality.

So to add one more to the list:

Political Parties, they should be called gangs like the crips and bloods.

I already knew the basics of libertartianism, but thanks for the politics lesson.

I don't think you understood my point. I know that from a strict libertarian POV, the two parties seem very similar. I'm just saying that this is not an objective analysis (just as it wouldn't be if an environmentalist said the two parties are the same because there is a lack of strict environmentalists in power). If you look at many other issues aside from the broad topic of 'both parties are expanding the state', then there are in fact major differences between the parties.

It always depends on your perspective. As a strict libertarian, your position is not going to have strong support by either of the major parties. But that also applies to everyone else whose beliefs are similarly 'rare', such as very strict environmentalists, animal rights activists, socialists and so on. For all of them, the parties are essentially 'the same'. However, that does not make that statement objectively true. Republicans and Democrats differ greatly in a number of issues -- the only question is if you care about those issues (and differences).

[-Conan the Barbarian-]

Okay we get it, broadly speaking Liberals/ Democrats and Republicans/ Conservatives greatly differ... on paper. I want to focus in on actual differences when you look at U.S. politics and what policies are actually implemented. I still see no differences when it comes to their foreign policy, which is an imperialistic policy that benefits corporations wrapped in propaganda about spreading democracy and freedom. I would say that most everything that Republicans and Democrats (and I am not talking your average joe shmoe card carrying Republican/Democrat) end up doing is for the benefit of corporations. For example Obamacare is the banking/insurance industry using the violent power of the state to force everyone to buy health insurance. Democrats are obviously pro Obamacare but are Conservatives really anti Obamacare? Atleast the Republicans in power don't seem to be. Notice how it was a conservative judge who ruled it to be constitutional. Notice how the general attitude of the Republican leadership is that of defeat and acceptance of it as law. I guarantee that when Republicans get into power there will be no willingness to delete Obamacare because it empowers the state and the corporations who are in bed with them.

Democracy-It is not the rule of the people but rather a tyranny of the majority.

[Denny Crane!]

Speaking as someone who broadly identifies as a libertarian I see massive differences between the parties inhabiting the political spectrum and I see it occurring each time they are in power. It is a massive oversimplification to say that because they add to the power of the state each election cycle they are both the same. For a start the power of the government is not on an exponential upwards swing. There has been a libertarian victory on many fronts, even if libertarian campaigning was not the root cause. 6-9% of the population is gay and they have just been given the freedom to marry, the war on drugs looks like its finally taking a poke in the eye with cannabis becoming semi-legal. Liberterines like to look back at the 19th century as though it was a golden age because government was smaller and there was less regulation. What there was in abundance was government sanctioned violence, they could kill you at the drop of a hat with very little in the way of checks and balances (or in the UKs case they could hang small children for stealing a loaf of bread). Life was cheap, now we are really starting to get the idea that life isn't just something the government can extinguish and there are less executions in the western word than ever before.

[RubiconDecision]

Any political party is a broad organization that has left and right elements. Whatever the Grand Old Party once was is no more. It's been replaced by a lot of guys voting very similarly to the Democrats and taking lots of cushy jobs in corporations later. Sadly there is no more Republican party.

Compare the current Republicans with some statesman like Barry Goldwater, and I doubt you find many match up. Ron Paul was pretty honorable as a Republican but really is a Libertarian-Republican hybrid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politic...ns_of_Ron_Paul
The political positions of Ron Paul (R-TX), United States presidential candidate in 1988, 2008, and 2012, are generally described as libertarian,^[1] but have also been labeled conservative^[2] and Constitutionalist.^[3] and Paul's nickname "Dr. No"^[4] reflects both his medical degree and his assertion that he will "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution".^[5] This position has frequently resulted in Paul casting the sole "no" vote against proposed legislation. The central tenet of Paul's political philosophy is that "the proper role for government in America is to provide national defense, a court system for civil disputes, a criminal justice system for acts of force and fraud, and little else."^[6]

Barry Goldwater's libertarian ideas, strong support of states rights, and even a strong support for the environment, while still staying with Republican voting agreement, led to people like Ron Paul.

The idea is to try to maintain the Republic as opposed to a majority rule through Democracy. Now most Americans feel no one represents them anymore, but only special interests especially the megacorporations post-NAFTA and post-GATT.

[Astaroth]

The idea is to try to maintain the Republic as opposed to a majority rule through Democracy.

Now most Americans feel no one represents them anymore, but only special interests especially the megacorporations post-NAFTA and post-GATT.

Nice contradiction you got going there. There should be less majority rule because most Americans feel no one represents them anymore. Does not compute.

And please stop with the "America is a republic, not a democracy!!" myth. America is a representative democracy with rights enshrined in a central doctument, just like basically every other Western liberal democracy.

[conon394]

Democracy-It is not the rule of the people but rather a tyranny of the majority.

No its not is the at its core the rule of the people expressed my the majority and every Democracy even the first had many checks - I see no Tyranny.

Democrats are obviously pro Obamacare but are Conservatives really anti Obamacare? Atleast the Republicans in power don't seem to be. Notice how it was a conservative judge who ruled it to be constitutional. Notice how the general attitude of the Republican leadership is that of defeat and acceptance of it as law. I guarantee that when Republicans get into power there will be no willingness to delete Obamacare because it empowers the state and the corporations who are in bed with them.

I would say your a bit misleading here. The Democrat's have pro-national health care. Obama care was more or less just what was feasible politically at the time. Large numbers of Democrats would have prefered a single system. But valued achieving the concept of National health and the pragmatic art of the possible vs failing on principle. Just curious how would do healthcare for American?

I still see no differences when it comes to their foreign policy, which is an imperialistic policy that benefits corporations wrapped in propaganda about spreading democracy and freedom.

Everyone likes to think they are not the bad guy, so that last point is knock off easy, but again I see significant difference. Obama has more or withdrawn 2 wars of occupation, has been disinterested at best to start anymore and refined US actions to just hunting individuals more or less.

----------------------------------

Paul's nickname "Dr. No"[4] reflects both his medical degree and his assertion that he will "never vote for legislation unless the proposed measure is expressly authorized by the Constitution".[5] This position has frequently resulted in Paul casting the sole "no" vote against proposed legislation. The central tenet of Paul's political philosophy is that "the proper role for government in America is to provide national defense, a court system for civil disputes, a criminal justice system for acts of force and fraud, and little else."[6]

Which is you have to admit really silly. The second part is untenable in a modern world, the First is illogical because not even the guys who the document used it that way or acted thus.

[-Conan the Barbarian-]

Speaking as someone who broadly identifies as a libertarian I see massive differences between the parties inhabiting the political spectrum and I see it occurring each time they are in power. It is a massive oversimplification to say that because they add to the power of the state each election cycle they are both the same. For a start the power of the government is not on an exponential upwards swing. There has been a libertarian victory on many fronts, even if libertarian campaigning was not the root cause. 6-9% of the population is gay and they have just been given the freedom to marry, the war on drugs looks like its finally taking a poke in the eye with cannabis becoming semi-legal. Liberterines like to look back at the 19th century as though it was a golden age because government was smaller and there was less regulation. What there was in abundance was government sanctioned violence, they could kill you at the drop of a hat with very little in the way of checks and balances (or in the UKs case they could hang small children for stealing a loaf of bread). Life was cheap, now we are really starting to get the idea that life isn't just something the government can extinguish and there are less executions in the western word than ever before.

Denny, sir you are arguing that the two parties are different because although they both support the massive theft of the general public in the tune of trillions of dollars going to corporations in the military industrial complex and the banking/insurance industries (the American empire), they gave us some piddly rights that people already naturally had such as marriage (which is a religious ceremony/ free speech) . And I guess so we didn't think we were too free they took away due process and habeas corpus in the NDAA acts that both parties supported, and our privacy rights were all along non existent as revealed by Edward Snowden.

If there was an abundance of government sanctioned violence in the 19th century and there is still government sanctioned violence today then the solution is obvious ; get rid of government.

@conon
Democracy is and always has been just another form of tyranny even in ancient Greece. You can't vote to take someone's property or labor and say it isn't morally wrong just because you have the support of 51% of the people.

I would say your a bit misleading here. The Democrat's have pro-national health care. Obama care was more or less just what was feasible politically at the time. Large numbers of Democrats would have prefered a single system. But valued achieving the concept of National health and the pragmatic art of the possible vs failing on principle. Just curious how would do healthcare for American?

I don't want people to confuse the average Joe schmoe democrat with the Democrats in power. Its the Democrats in power at the top that shape the government. They gave us a fascist model of healthcare where we are compelled under threat of jail time and fines to pay corporations for insurance. Is that just a politically expedient form of health insurance or another bailout to the banking industry?

Everyone likes to think they are not the bad guy, so that last point is knock off easy, but again I see significant difference. Obama has more or withdrawn 2 wars of occupation, has been disinterested at best to start anymore and refined US actions to just hunting individuals more or less.

I don't see significant differences at all. Just more U.S. imperialism. Obama winding down troop presences in Iraq is not an example of a significant difference if that was part of the plan. The U.S. imperial plan was always to eventually withdraw the bulk of the troops after strategic energy interests were secured. Then they can leave behind a huge presence of U.S. power like a giant embassy bigger than the Vatican and thousands of contractors. pulling out troops was the propaganda stunt. The reality is that Iraq is now part of the American empire and the threat Saddam gave to the world reserve currency (the American empire's source of power) was eliminated. Same goes for Libya where his "apparent lack of interest for starting wars" went out the window.
Afghanistan being a big part the U.S. imperial plan actually had huge troop surges under Obama before recent "withdrawals" So what is the signifigant difference?
That country in the middle of all this, Iran, has U.S. forces surrounding her, and is continually being economically suppressed no matter who is in charge of the U.S. empire so what is the difference?

Do you honestly think that Obama' drone strikes are just hitting individuals? No I think not. I've read plenty of stories of how collateral damage is a regular occurrence as well as missing intended targets altogether. I wonder how many innocent people die for every one "intended target". That's not to say that these intended targets deserved it anyways or that Obama has a right to assassinate individuals or bomb sovereign countries people. Even American citizens have been executed by drones, no judge no jury, American Muslims preaching peace to other Muslims die long with their innocent relatives. I wonder how much each missile costs and how many Countries' sovereignty are being violated by these bombings.

Democrat Or Republican, makes little difference when both are controlled by Corporations with interests in a global American Empire.

[Denny Crane!]

Denny, sir you are arguing that the two parties are different because although they both support the massive theft of the general public in the tune of trillions of dollars going to corporations in the military industrial complex and the banking/insurance industries (the American empire), they gave us some piddly rights that people already naturally had such as marriage (which is a religious ceremony/ free speech) . And I guess so we didn't think we were too free they took away due process and habeas corpus in the NDAA acts that both parties supported, and our privacy rights were all along non existent as revealed by Edward Snowden.

You find one obvious common point that they are obviously going to share then say they are all the same (fingers in my ears I can't hear anything else lalalalalalalalalala) which might seem like a valid discussion tactic but it just makes it look like you want to discuss this on an infantile level.

What has changed isn't just random or arbitrary it is changing accepted social dynamics that haven't changed in thousands of years. The freedom and acceptance of people having equal rights to not be considered less than a full human being with the right of self determination. I'm guessing by your talk you are probably an anarchist. Well give democracy to a people that aren't ready for it and you get Iraq or Afghanistan and try and just randomly implement anarchy and you get Somalia.

If there was an abundance of government sanctioned violence in the 19th century and there is still government sanctioned violence today then the solution is obvious ; get rid of government.

Because they are exactly the same! Of course, things are exactly the same in the UK and USA today as they were back in the 18th and 19th century and nothing has changed so lets just listen to this man!

Does anyone else want to have this discussion because I don't...

[Col. Tartleton]

Why would I vote against the Global American Empire? That would be a stupid policy.

"I want to be poorer, less influential, and less safe." "Have you ever considered moving to Indonesia?" "Why no, I hadn't."

If both parties are for the primacy of the United States I should think that they are acting in my interests and are being reasonable.

The issue is that they are, in order to each have roughly 45-55% of the population, coalition governments with many different groups and views all of which are not mainstream or reasonable for that matter. As such while both parties have many admirable platforms neither is capable of having a perfect platform and ultimately both parties are roughly identical in terms of their balance of liberalism and reaction on various topics although their positions on individual topics might vary quite a bit.

So as a liberal I find myself generally seeing reason in liberal republican and liberal democrat legislation.

[-Conan the Barbarian-]

Your interests? Col Tartelton what part of the military industrial complex are you? Are you Lockheed, Boeing or what? Or are you a bank? Are you JP Morgan Chase, goldmansachs perhaps?

You find one obvious common point that they are obviously going to share .......

Its a massively huge point!

Their "differences" as pointed out by MrZanyGaming are insignificant in comparison or are merely talking points.

Because they are exactly the same! Of course, things are exactly the same in the UK and USA today as they were back in the 18th and 19th century and nothing has changed so lets just listen to this man!

Not in terms of the scale of government sanctioned violence.

[Col. Tartleton]

Your interests? Col Tartelton what part of the military industrial complex are you? Are you Lockheed, Boeing or what? Or are you a bank? Are you JP Morgan Chase, goldmansachs perhaps?

Apparently people are corporations now. I guess I'll be a bank. They tend to be fairly immune to white collar legal proceedings. That could be convenient if I ever decide to steal anything.

[-Conan the Barbarian-]

Apparently people are corporations now. I guess I'll be a bank. They tend to be fairly immune to white collar legal proceedings. That could be convenient if I ever decide to steal anything.

Lol true

[Col. Tartleton]

Imagine getting sued by your liver because you didn't live up to your responsibilities to it as a shareholder of your body by drinking to much!

Drinking too little. My liver is entirely on board. He's VP of M&A.

[Denny Crane!]

Drinking too little. My liver is entirely on board.

Oh I am old enough now that I get the objections to drinking loud and clear from my liver every hangover.

[Earl Dibbles Jr]

Republicans:
-Less Government in the economy
-Strengthened borders
-War on drugs
-Strong military
-Typically Anglo-Saxon men
Democrats:
-More government in the economy
-More government in people's lives
-Share the wealth
-Welfare
-Open borders
-Typically minorities and women

Those differences are just off the top of my head. Both parties have significant differences in terms of their political stances.

[Denny Crane!]

As an analogy the differences between the UK parties are more pronounced and we have one group who is authoritarian and massively increased the size of the government and its powers severely effecting the ability of the economy to function and another who is slowly drawing all of that back as well as making moves on taking victimless crime from the statute book. These are the biggest changes, the things that are realistically ever going to effect anyone within their lifetime, the role of the government and the freedoms they give.

To a gay person this can be the difference between having the ability to share their life with someone and be able to sit at their death bed (a right they have been denied in the past) and you claim they are just mere talking points?

Well I will retort by saying you want to talk in meaningless abstractions of what is free and what is not and in a fantasy of what could happen and how the world could function (something I have engaged in, in the past, and it is hopelessly complex and impossible) instead of talking about what is happening right now.

That is great, talk up your easy answers and reduce everything down to simple groups because that is what we as humans like simple answers and clear distinct enemies. The left wing have the neoliberals (anything bad ever was caused by them), the right wing have the irreligious collectivists who have no morals and the libertarians have their statists and there can be no compromise - this is the problem these groups and if only we could get rid of them things would be OK.

I'm not going to rob you of your fantasy, the world is that simple and we're only a step away from cotton wool and fluffy bunnies.

Apparently people are corporations now. I guess I'll be a bank. They tend to be fairly immune to white collar legal proceedings. That could be convenient if I ever decide to steal anything.

Imagine getting sued by your liver because you didn't live up to your responsibilities to it as a shareholder of your body by drinking to much!

[Denny Crane!]