I can't speak for everyone, but my position has been the two parties are more alike than different, not that they are identical. Yes, I certainly agree the Republicans are demonstrably worse for most Americans, but the Democratic party is a disgrace too. On this specific issue they serve Americans' interests better, on many they're comparably bad, and on some, they're clearly worse. Ultimately both parties focus most on whoring themselves to select special interests with deep pockets rather than serving the majority of American citizens. Some of those special interests have bought both parties, others pick sides.
There are very important issues where they are different. And too many issues they're not.
However, the Democratic Party in the House has nearly half the members in the Proegressive Caucus; your post is much more accurate about the others.
It's not about the Progressive Caucus much at all. They generally do 'put the people first'; and they lack the advertising budget to win over 'moderates' to notice it.
The Senate, not so much - members like Byron Dorgan, Russ Feingold, and some others no longer there; just a small number, like Bernie Sanders and Al Franken.
So, while there's some truth to your post, what's more important - cynicism about the issues they're 'both bad' on, or the many issues they're not?
That doesn't take anything away from the importance of larger reform causing the corruption of both parties. But people who think they're 'the same' are very wrong.
Do you really need even a small summary, from Supreme Court appointments with Republicans appointing radicals from the Federalist Society who would not follow the norms in our constitutional definitions, behind so many terrible 5-4 decisions including Citizens United; the Republicans following huge sellout programs, practically opposing government in general when it represents the people, allowing those corrupt interests to write leislation, the K Street project demanding they donate only to Republicans to get their bills voted on when they had Congress; their only real policy agenda being to transfer wealth to the rich taking the country to plutocracy, with pandering to whoever is needed to get the power for those votes; just look at examples from Bush's top domestic priorities - first term, tax cuts for the rich, second term privatize social security. Look at the Ryan Budget basically all Republicans support which among other things destroys Medicare 'as we know it', a system of healthcare, turning it into a 'coupon' for inefficient private insurace spending a third less on people and putting the savings into another tax cut for the rich - at first, with more reductions likely over time as they destroy this Democratic thorn in their side from the Great Society. Republicans are the ones who want to abandon 'government for the people' and wholesale destroy government functions from education to environmental protection, and further gut regulation of the financial industry (the enemies of good public servants such as Elizabeth Warren who are for the people's interests).
I've just scratched the surface, but there are large differences. We need to oppose both the corrupt Republicans, the misguided Republicans (Tea Party types), and corrupt Democrats (often people who are simply sellouts, 'Democrats in Name Only' where running as a Democrats helps their chances).
You do not seem to appreciate the important differences - the Supreme Court alone is a strong reason to prefer one party.
Obama is basically a moderate Republican - but even there, he's very different than McCain or Romney, much better in most important areas (not a few others).
The Republican often don't campaign on thier agenda, so you can't just say 'oh, Republicans say they're for freedom, I like freedom, nothing wrong with them'.
They have historic control of statehouses now - surprising voters with their national agenda from ALEC, pushing voter suppression laws and union-busting laws among others they generally did not campaign on, designed for one purpose, to gut Democrats' power so they can better get wealth shifted to the 0.01%. Did Bush campaign on an obsession for war with Iraq he felt would boost his power? Quite the opposite. Did he campaign on skyrocketing defense and security spending onto the deficit with tax cuts for the rich? No, he did campaign on tax cuts, but only from 'the surplus' that was no longer there, nothing about weighting them so average Americans got crumbs (and Obama has actually cut middle class taxes much more). And many other issues.
Sorry Bowfinger, you can't just say 'they're the same' in some areas like there aren't very important issues they're not the same on.
It's hardly black and white - there are some 'bad Democrats', and problem areas (that's what happens when you 'need the corrupt money' for elections), but you're ignoring many very important issues in your calling the parties more similar than they are. Consider the policies passed by Democratic super-majorities in the last century - list all you can think of and tell me whether you agree with the policies.
Make a list in your next post. For a start, consider:
- Infrastructure New Deal programs
- Creation of the SEC and large strengthening of financial regulations from the New Deal
- Civil and Voting Rights Acts
- Anti-Poverty programs that cut the national poverty rate permanently by a third
- Freedom of Information Act providing public investigators access to government info
- Social Security
- Medicare and Medicaid
- Strengthening public education grealy increasing how many have higher education
And consider what Republicans have done with their large majorities, such as:
- Opposing unsuccessfully Social Security, 'socialized medicine' meaning Medicare
- Tax Cuts weighted for the rich and other policies leading to historic highs in the concentration of wealth, wanting even more shifts to the 0.01%
- De-regulating the financial industry (Savings and Loans under Reagan leading to the S&L crisis, working with non-progressive Democrats under Clinton, continuing under Bush leading to the 2008 crash, in part by shutting down actual regulation, appointing hundreds of 'regulators' from the lobbyists and executives of the industries they were supposed to regulate)
- The creation of defict spending like never seen in peacetime in American history
- Support for the corrupt overspending in the Military-Indusrial-Congressional complex
- Appointing the radical rightwing members on the Supreme Court
- Anti-Union, anti-worker, anti-minimum wage, anti-worker safety etc. policies
The result of the Republican shift since Reagan is a historic level of deficit spending in a 'starve the beast' strategy to kill off spending on the people, and a 30 year period in which all economic growth after in flation, in which the economy more than double, went to the top 20%, weighted to the top 1% and more weighted to the top 0.1%, leading to the first generation in American history worse off than the previous - and they want to shift wealth further to the top instead of shifting it back.
Democrats are better than Republicans on important issues, and Progressive much more than other Democrats and Republicans.
Save234