Originally posted by: Thump553
Personally I don't think either of the two major parties in the US are liberal or conservative. The GOP, at least for the last decade or so, is primarily authoritarian with a secondary emphasis on traditional conservative values (mostly applicable to cutting income tax rates). The Dems? Almost impossible to pin down as they have so many divergent viewpoints under their social umbrella. The Dem Party is more of a coalition of (sometimes) compatible interests than anything else.
And I agree with the OP that the conservative/liberal dichotomy is pretty much a waste of time. All of us have some of each in our makeup. What we are all looking for, when it boils down to it, is the most efficient solution to society's problems.
The problem with this post is that it neglects to notice the realities of how concentrated power corrupts the idealistic function of the parties it describes.
It's right about what the people want, but it misses that the more important question currently isn't what the people want, but why the political system isn't more about that.
There is a permanent tension between the more general public interest, and the interests of whose who have disproportionate wealth and power. Each is convinced the pendulum has swung too far the other way. That doesn't mean that the pendulum is actually nicely in the middle, merely that the 'middle' is not even defined other than by the power distribution, with those having it getting to say where it'll go.
Just look at this forum, where wide ranges in the distribution of wealth, of taxation, of spending, all get the same basic factions saying the same basic things. Whether the top tax rate was 90% in the 1950's with a much smaller federal government and a large share paid by businesses, or is 35% today with a bigger government and the proportion paid by businesses and citizens reversed, you see the same basic political views being expressed.
My previous post talked about the quote saying politicians have to LOOK good to voters and DO good for donors. Let's take an example.
Let's say you are with the insurance industry, one of the powerful groups in society. You have natural enemies, from the trial lawyers who want to take your money, to the do-gooders who want to reduce the need, or at least the cost, for insurance. What do you do to have the rules go your way?
One choice is not to get in politics; that choice means the other side gets their agenda passed, and you're screwed, so you don't want that.
So, you have to pick a party. Since a party can't really pass both agendas, as they're contradictory, you tend to see the two sides each align with one of the two parties.
The party's job is to serve you by getting power, which means getting the votes to win office. That's where you see the other side of the game. With you, it's all about 'so, what do you want in the insurance industry? Less regulation, tort reform?' But to get elected, it's all about the selling of the party to voters - telling those CONSUMERS what they want to hear to vote for you.
It's a simple anecdote, but I think a clarifying one - I recall visiting the country faire, and seeing stands for each party; each had handouts saying 'who is a (democract/republican)?'
Funny enough, most of the checklist items were on both forms, since the purpose wasn't to really differentiate, but rather to get the reader to think they are a member of the party who put out the handout. To exaggerate, 'Our party likes puppies, sunshine, and walks on the beach'. This is where a whole segment of politics comes in which is about pandering to the voters, without stepping on the toes of the real 'owners' of the party.
This is why you see the Republicans under Bush constantly talk one set of issues which have popular appeal, while quietly working on the substantive policies like the Medicare drug 'benefit' which was primarily about giving money to their top donor industry, big pharma, and yes, there are some analogous behaviors by the democrats.
It's healthy for people to get a clue about how this works, so they don't just spout how politics such, and understand how the power works, that the extent to which the parties serve their interests is connected to how much they can help the party gain power. In the past, politics might be about the local boss handing out patronage to your neghborhood or giving you a holiday ham, and expecting you would damn well vote as a bloc for the party; today, it's about promising you some marketing message (protect your guns, improve education) in exchange for your vote. One reason for the negative politics is that it's cheaper to promise to protect you from the other party (we'll stop those nanny government liberals and protect your guns/we'll stop those war-mongering right-wingers) than it is to promise to actually give away something - it's free, and yet motivates voters, so WOO HOO - demonize the other party and get elected based on that, freeing your resources for your donors.
This is why voters need to get that clue and realize that things like campaign finance reform aren't some esoteric whiny topic they should not pay attention to, but are rather central factors guaranteed to rob them of their power in the system until fixed. They can ignore the issue at their own peril.
There is power in organization, and weakness in a lack of it. This is why industries, who have very concentrated, well-funded agendas, get very disproportionate consideration compared to a bunch of citizens who don't get more involved in politics than to need a little pandering, some slogans and pictures of waving flags now and again.
If the people won't pass campaign finance reform, then they need to start paying their own money for the causes they want. They can say all day that the government SHOULD put the 'public good' ahead of the special interest, but when the special interest makes out the campaign check and the 'public interest' doesn't, the campaign ads the donation buys have a lot bigger impact on the voters than the party who just votes the right way. It's more about who has the budget to say they vote the right way.
The fact that the people reading this are among probably the top 5% more politically aware is an indication why the public is doomed to be treated like cattle.
Parties are merely the efficient organizations for the system we set up - a system which can be correctly criticized, but which does have the excellent attribute of the popular vote.
As corrupted as the political culture is so that our politics rarely discuss issues in any reasonable manner, the fact the public votes has a great moderating effect on corruption.
Sometimes the pendulum swings one way, as when the public under FDR increased in wealth, grew the middle class, and reduced the concentration of wealth; and sometimes the other as in the last 25 years when the middle class is under attack, average citizens are not sharing in the economy's growth and the concentration of wealth is shooting up; but our system still prevents the levels of serfdom that exist without the vote.