What identifiable diffrences can you see between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party?

page: 1
1

log in

join

posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 04:02 PM
link   
Let's face it. Many of us are clearly not inclined to accept the notion that Republican politicians and Democratic politicians are actually 'cookie cutter' templates. There are obvious differences between them all simply because they are all individuals.

But what about the parties themselves. Judging by their actions, it seems at times that the only difference between them is their name and symbol.

What is the REAL difference? What component of ideology truly sets one apart from the other?




posted on Aug, 22 2008 @ 06:45 PM
link   
To tell you the truth beside one calling itself conservative and the other calling itself liberal I see no differences when it comes to ideologies in their party lines.

Both cater to big interest and the fattest pockets in Washington.

Perhaps 40 years ago it was a market difference in both parties but no in todays politics.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 03:23 AM
link   
I think the most marked difference I at least perceive, though it's hard to listen to/watch/read enough sources to tell, but it seems to me that their tactics are different, at least to some extent, in how they use the media to achieve their goals.

When you look at the process, you see Democrats trying to appeal to the higher minded individuals - trying to portray themselves as somehow above those dirty republicans, where conversely, Republicans seem to say and do anything it takes to achieve their goals - which in some ways is both a positive and a negative quality in a party. Democrats like to portray Republicans as base, secretive, fundamentalists, where Republicans like to portray Democrats as gay-loving morally bankrupt limp wristed girlies. The methods they choose to do this though, are somewhat different, in my opinion.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 09:20 AM
link   
I can't believe that it all boils down to vague conceptualizations of 'liberalism' 'conservtative', and such.

I asked many people seeking some notion more concrete than marketing schemes and media characterization. Yet no one can stand up on their soap box and give me a concrete reason to believe that the difference is cosmetic and contrived.

I hope eventually someone can come up with something more concrete.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 09:41 AM
link   
It is the tax structure.

The Gop likes to minimize taxes on business and investor classes. The tax structure cannot sustain the general economy
( Usually) and this creates massive deficit spending and debt. This can be witnessed by the trillions in debt added during President Bush Administration. At the end of this cycle govt must compete with banking for Capital, credit dries up, and the economy enters a slowdown or recession.

The DNC likes higher tax on business and investor classes, while minimizing tax on the working classes. This results in surplus ( usually) and more even economic cylces for the economy. This can be witnessed by the surplus left when President Clinton left Office. This Business cycle can run for sustained lengths of time, as Govt can invest these surpluses into the general economy and act itself as a Central Bank, which was its intended purpose.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 10:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hallberg Rassy
It is the tax structure.

The Gop likes to minimize taxes on business and investor classes. The tax structure cannot sustain the general economy



I agree the tax cuts that Republicans like to parade and enforce during their presidential times to gain approval from the tax payers all it does is put the nation on recession.

We have history to tell the truth but in America people have developed myopia when it comes to the devastating results of the Republicans tax cuts.

During the Regan era his Reganomics did nothing but but a strain on the economy at least he was smart enough to try to fix the damage during his second term.

While Bush senior could not do anything about his promise of no more taxes trying to fix the reminding mess from Regan 8 years.

Clinton in the other hand brought what could have been a prosperity and a reduction on the national deficit.

But then again 8 years of Bush junior has given us a devastating and outrageous deficit that will linger for a few decades.

[edit on 23-8-2008 by marg6043]



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 10:36 AM
link   
OK, educate me.

So fiscal policy is the actual defining factor, and your examples are well-received by me.

The rest is just a development of political marketing. That theory would fit when one sees the commonplace instances of 'flip-flopping' to pander to desired voter support.

If the tax model is relevant, then so is the primary beneficiary of the model as it exists in our country. This entity, namely the privately owned Central Bank we have been taught to refer to as 'The Fed". It ties the political party and it's functional distinction as a function of this, super-citizen.

Are we getting somewhere with this line of reasoning, or am I missing elements to attribute the distinction between Republican and Democrat ideology (if it can be called that anymore).



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 11:03 AM
link   
You know you question is beyond answering really, like I said before both parties are differentiated by what they call themselves, conservative vs liberal.

But beside the example of economical views they are not difference when it comes to their views of the nation and specially when it comes to the special interest they serve over the citizens needs.

You can no longer see any differences in their core believes, even the claim that the Republican party is for small government while Democrats are for big government doesn’t apply anymore we can see that with the Bush administration.

Regan many times was seen as more liberal than conservative when he wasn’t able to deliver the government structuring that he promised.

See candidates can promised anything they want before been chosen, I chose (chosen) because I believe that our voting system is controlled and fixed.

It was a time that when it comes to the economy it was a marked difference between the Democrats and Republican, the first supporter government intervention and control, while Republicans been always dominated by private interest were against any government control on what they called free enterprise and capitalism.

Now both parties are riddle by private interest.

Look at taxes and spending, The Bush administration has gone completely away from the party lines of small government and less government spending, but their tax cuts benefit one side of the population than the other and look what is becoming of our economy.

Now when it comes to National defense we all know that Democrats like limitations of defense spending but Republicans wants big spending on defense and we all know why, they are the ones with more records on wars under their administration.

Education on that one it was a time that education was a priority but now for the last 3 decades our education system has gone down the drain, none of the two political parties are doing anything fix the trouble education is right now.

We are falling behind compare to the rest of the world.

Inmigration now that has become a big joke in washington as both parties has disregarded the wants of the american citizens and their views of immigration are as scramble as they can be.

None of the two parties has stood by what they preach about the security of the nation when it comes to borders.

Both parties private interest benefits from illegal workers, while it seems that the secret planing behind doors with the NAFTA has Republican written all over we all know that both parties will benefit equaly.



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 11:56 AM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Fiscal policy certainly has a strong bearing, but there are a few related general differences.

Traditionally, the Republican party supports notions of increased state's rights, conservative fiscal policies/spending, and lessened federal bureaucracy (all of these tend to be quite interconnected).

On the other hand, Democrats generally support a larger federal role in governance/support, which can lead to increased spending and more federal bureaucracy.

That said, the difficult part is that over the last two decades these party ideals have become quite diluted. By these traditional characteristics Bush could easily be labeled a liberal, while Clinton could just as easily have been labeled a conservative.

[edit on 8/23/08 by redmage]


GD

posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 09:46 PM
link   
There are other differnces. The Republican platform has a plank to protect life, while teh Democrats have a plank supporting abortion. Recently Republicans have been more "hawkish" than Democrats, but that was not always true. The main differnce is Republicans usually live by the rule of let me help myself, while Democrats live by we should all help each other



posted on Aug, 23 2008 @ 10:08 PM
link   
Is it me, or does it seem that there is no concrete distinctive difference between the two?

I understand the practices that have been quoted above, but it seem less than solid. It all depends on who, what, when.., sometimes each acts the same way as the other did at one point or another. Nothing is salient as a specific clear-cut separation. There are politicians in each group that just as easily could fit the other.

Sadly, I was looking for an answer that I think cannot be given. The way the zealotry behaves you would think there would be something more monumental as a difference between the two.


GD

posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 03:14 PM
link   



posted on Aug, 24 2008 @ 03:24 PM
link   
reply to post by GD
 


I will look at those links, but I am expecting I'll come out with more questions than answers. Thank you.

[edit on 24-8-2008 by Maxmars]



posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 11:44 PM
link   
I don't know how many here are old enough to remember, but at one time the Democratic Party was very conservative. JFK and Reagan's beliefs about the economy were nearly identical. I viewed a tape of JFK last year that could have easily been Reagan outlining his economic views. They were both for lowering taxes, less big government and propping up business to make jobs.

My Father was a Democrat and he was a hard core conservative in his view. Had he known JFK was cheating on his Wife, he would have would have picketed the White House. He campaigned for JFK with all his heart. It would have broke his heart.

Somewhere along the way the lines were blurred and roles reversed. It seemed to start with the abortion issue. Carter I think was the point at which the Far Left and Far Right began to emerge on the scene. The Far Left forever changed the Democratic Party and then other radical groups and idea's piled on.

The political fervor was no less then though. In fact this election is quite calm compared to the time from the mid-60's to the early 70's. I don't think young folks realize that times are better now. Higher standard of living, no more hard labor due to equipment, larger and more lavish homes, far more homeowners and far longer life expectancies.

The same doom and gloom predictions were being made then, only the Internet was not there to spread the bad idea's so vigorously. Rich Southern Democrats proudly wore sheets over their heads and radical Right John Birchers screamed their nonsense from the rooftops.

Nothing really changes.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 01:57 PM
link   
Since Roosevelt the Democrats have been the party that promotes the welfare of the middle class. It looks to the 1950's and 60's as a time of prosperity in this country because the middle class was growing larger rather than shrinking as it is now. That prosperity was in large part because tax rates on the rich and on corporations were higher than they are now at the same time that the wages of the average worker were steadily increasing (in part because of unions) giving the middle class more clout economically and stimulating the economy. There were still the very rich but they usually didn't flaunt their wealth with unbelievably lavish and extravagant spending as they do now. The Democrats share with the Republicans the belief that the prosperity of businesses are part of a strong economy, in addition to an increasing prosperity of the middle class, though they think there should be some constraints on the excesses of them. They believe in cutting taxes on the middle class and a return to higher tax rates on the top 1% of the poulation and on big businesses.

The Democrats believe there is a role for the government in promtoing the general welfare, in programs such as the "middle class entitlements"--Social Security, Social Security disablilty, veterans' benefits, etc.--as well as programs for the poorest citizens. They are now in favor of some sort of national health care. More conservative Democrats, like Clinton, believe, with conservatives, that people should also help themselves as seen in the Clinton administration's "welfare to work" initiative.

It's true, as one poster has pointed out, that Democrats in the 50's and 60's were more sociallyconservative than they are now, but more progressive in their economic and social policies. The Republicans were also more liberal, in that they accepted many of the social reforms that began with Roosevelt, and there was much more bipartisan cooperation in Congress. Both parties were about equally responsibe for the "red scare" of the 1950's--a collective phobia about communism.

In the 1960's the Democratic party (though some southern Democrats objected) embraced the civil rights movement.

Democrats haven't been that different from Republicans in matters of war and peace, though right now the party is strongly anti-interventionist as regards the war in Iraq.

I will try to be as fair to the Republicans; I am biased toward the Democrats so I may need correcting on some things.

Republicans have pretty much always promoted the welfare of big businesses, with as few contraints on them as possible. At the extreme end are those who favor absolute "laissez faire" capitalism, but I don't think those are the majority. I am most familiar with the economic policies of the Reagan and Bush administrations so I will focus on those. Reaganites (and Bush supporters) were for cutting taxes on big corporations and the top 5% of the population in the belief that the prosperity of those entities would "trickle down" to the middle class and poor. They say that such tax cuts pay for themselves, though that's disputed by some economists.

Republicans favor smaller government, the reduction or elimination of social programs and when possible a privatization of them, and fiscal responsibility. Philosophically they believe in individual responsibility and "pulling oneself up by one's own bootstraps."

Many Republicans believe that the U.S. should export democracy whenever possible. At other times in history Republicans have been non-interventionist and occasionally isolationist.

Republicans tend to be socially conservative, though the party embraces a wide spectrum of lifestyles and interests. They are called that "party of the big tent" because of their tolerance of differing views. They are the party of choice of many Evangelical Christians because of their social conservatism and the general support of issues like the right to life.

I'm sure I left much out but those are the major differences as I see them.

[edit on 3-9-2008 by Sestias]



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 02:16 PM
link   
I have much to ask regarding some of the above assertions. Not challenges, so much as contrasted comparisons. I am working on a project that I intend to incorporate into the thread, one that examine platforms and policies. My goal is to determine a definitive difference in the ideologies to which the political parties subject our country. But it is slow going. I will simply tease a bit by stating that the Republican party, which loves to claim Lincoln as an exemplary, was not much more than as dissident group of Whigs who had objections to implementing national-level policy to support a slave-state economy which was prevalent in the southern portion of the country. But from there on forward, the political and power games began and it all gets very seedy.



posted on Sep, 3 2008 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Sestias
In the 1960's the Democratic party (though some southern Democrats objected) embraced the civil rights movement.


That is true, but the whole story is a bit more complex in that percentage-wise, when it was finally put to a vote, it got more support from Republicans in general. Then you need to look at it by region of the country. The Wiki has a pretty good breakdown of that.


[edit] Vote totals
Totals are in "Yea-Nay" format:

The original House version: 290-130 (69%-31%)
The Senate version: 73-27 (73%-27%)
The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289-126 (70%-30%)

[edit] By party
The original House version:[9]

Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
The Senate version:[9]

Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[9]

Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)


Then if you take a look at the regional statistics -


The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)
The Senate version:

Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)


Overall a higher percentage of Republicans supported the Act than Democrats, making the traditional view of the Republicans not supporting it a myth. There was in fact strong support on both sides.

When you look to the South, you see that only a tiny percentage of them supported this Act.


I will try to be as fair to the Republicans; I am biased toward the Democrats so I may need correcting on some things.

Republicans have pretty much always promoted the welfare of big businesses, with as few constraints on them as possible.


As it is with Democrats, Republicans can not be defined so narrowly. Small Business is the backbone of our country and the pinnacle of the American Dream. Republicans have traditionally also supported legislation that empowers small businesses who employ far more people than Large Corporations do. Most business owners tend to lean toward the Republican side of the fence for that reason.

In modern times it seems some of the myths surrounding the differences have proved to not hold up. In just the last year I've seen reports that the average income of Democrats is now higher than Republicans and that Republicans give far more to charity than Democrats, which runs contrary to what is often said.


Source Article.
-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
***Source article is by George Will





new topics
top topics
 
1

log in

join