what is a democrat and a republican exactly?

[jinduy]

i'm not really into politics and my general impression of the two is that democrats favor the common folk (including the poor), while republicans favor the rich people and love to cut taxes for the upper class folk.

 

[Eli]

IMO, labeling is stupid.


Hmmm.. I wonder what that makes me?

 

[amdforever2]

flower for osama


bullet for osama

 

[Ryan]

Originally posted by: jinduy
i'm not really into politics and my general impression of the two is that democrats favor the common folk (including the poor), while republicans favor the rich people and love to cut taxes for the upper class folk.

That's what they want you to think

In reality, it's the opposite way around.

 

[jinduy]

Originally posted by: rbloedow

Originally posted by: jinduy
i'm not really into politics and my general impression of the two is that democrats favor the common folk (including the poor), while republicans favor the rich people and love to cut taxes for the upper class folk.

That's what they want you to think

what should i think then? that's my question. i'm not taking any side, i'm just curious.

 

[Xenon14]

There are various things to distinguish the two, but in my mind many of them are a lot more alike than different. Both are wrong on a lot of issues.

Democrats condone rights...ie free speech, but take away right to property (taxes).
Republicans limit rights ie patriot act, but uphold capitalism by promoting privatization.

Edit: my examples are an oversimplification. As a note, I'm actually writing a term paper right now on why Pure Capitalism is the most efficient way to run a country....looking at capitalism both economically and politically - Ayn Rand style.

 

[Blain]

The following is "spin"...

The Democratic Party
"At the start of the 21st Century, the Democratic Party can look back on a proud history ? a history not just of a political organization but of a national vision. It is a vision based on the strength and power of millions of economically empowered, socially diverse and politically active Americans. Over two hundred years ago, our Party's founders decided that wealth and social status were not an entitlement to rule. They believed that wisdom and compassion could be found within every individual and a stable government must be built upon a broad popular base."

"...wealth and social status were not an entitlement to rule" - Try telling that to Jon Corzine of New Jersey.
But don't cry for him. He said his plans were to "write off" the $60+ million HE "loaned" HIS campaign.


The Republican Party
"<a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.rnc.org/gopinfo/history/goph1.htm">Abolishing slavery. Free speech. Women's suffrage. In today's stereotypes, none of these sounds like a typical Republican issue, yet they are stances the Republican Party, in opposition to the Democratic Party, adopted early on.

Reducing the government. Streamlining the bureaucracy. Returning power to the states. These issues don't sound like they would be the promises of the party of Lincoln, the party that fought to preserve the national union, but they are, and logically so. With a core belief in the idea of the primacy of individuals, the Republican Party, since its inception, has been at the forefront of the fight for individuals' rights in opposition to a large, bloated government.</a>"

 

[KEV1N]

Here's how I view it... democrats think that everybody needs help (poor? we can give you welfare!) and implements social programs to address this, whereas republicans believe everyone should take care of him/herself.

 

[freegeeks]

the democrats promise you everything
the republicans promise you everything AND a tax cut

 

[Mrburns2007]

A Democrat sees the glass as half empty
A Republican wants to know who the hell has been drinking my water

 

[csyberblue]

as I remember from my high school government class, here's how things are basically broken down

democrats believe in a lot of social rights, like the freedom to choose in abortion, gay marriages as being acceptable etc. They also believe in a more central government, like nation wide laws.

republicans are more conservative, and tend to not support gay marriages, abortion, etc. They want more power in the state run governments. They also are very pro-business, and therefore change their agenda to work with companies more.

of course, these are the far sides, you can agree with certain aspects of some of the parties, like you can be for a republican, you want more power to the state governments, you want more tax rebates for your small business, but you are pro-choice, so you may consider yourself a libertarian (I think that what's it's called, like a more right sided republican).

 

[Rob9874]

Some of these responses are angering me. I hate to hear regurgitations of what the political parties want people to think. OP, don't take too much of what you read here as fact. Much of 16-21 year old's political opinions are based on MTV News.

 

[Mrburns2007]

Originally posted by: Rob9874
Some of these responses are angering me. I hate to hear regurgitations of what the political parties want people to think. OP, don't take too much of what you read here as fact. Much of 16-21 year old's political opinions are based on MTV News.

There all rats I say and if it's your rat agianst my rat then I hope my rat wins!

 

[Monel Funkawitz]

Here is the jist......

Democrat - Mainly for the liberalist. Save the carrots. Make peace and gay babies, not war. Most work Unions make their employes vote Democrat, because democratic parties are big on sloting out money. Most welfare programs are headed by the democrats. The democratic party is responsible for "Politically correct Crayon colors".


Republican - Mainly for the conservative. Fight for your rights. What you earn is yours, don't like it, then get off your ass and start working like the rest of us. Most republicans believe "Gay" still means to be happy, and for those same sex intercourse people, the only good use for them is to jam a stick up their stoolpushin' ass, light 'em on fire and use 'em for a Tiki torch to repel some of them damn mosquitos. Gay marriage is still unbelieveably humerous to us. The republican party is responsible for your continued rights to own a shotgun and is why gas isn't $8 a gallon.


That crap about the democrat supporting the poor and republicans supporting the rich is bullsh*t, comming from the mouth of a uneducated simpleton.

 

[Ornery]

See where you stand compared to others by taking this test at Political Compass. My results here.

Conservatives are actually liberals who have been "mugged by reality."

Adlai Stevenson once described a liberal as "one with both feet firmly planted in the air."

 

[FrustratedUser]

Me

 

[josphII]

off the top of my head:

Democrats are against gun owners rights, prefer environmentally friendly policies at the expense of buisness friendly regulations. They support affirmative action, taxing the rich (and then giving tax rebates to the poor - wealth redistribution), are against drilling for oil in Alaska and racial profiling, dislike nuclear engergy, are pro-choice, some do not support the death penalty, and favor lesser sentencing for drug offenders. You are also for gay rights and for the separation of church and state. Democrats also typically support higher taxes and more involvment of the government in peoples everyday lives (ie national health care, nonprivitization of social security, non use of public funds for private schools, etc). If you are of the Jesse Jackson type, you also hate the white man, believe blacks are victims of white oppresion, and believe the police infairly target blacks. You also favor retributions to the disendants of slaves.

Republicans are for gun owners rights, prefer buisness friendly regulations over regulations targeted at 'saving the environment.' Republicans favor tax cuts for all americans (not just low earners), are for drilling in Alaska, nuclear energy, and support the death penalty. Republicans dont support the separation of church and state in all instances and generally believe in states' rights and less federal involvement. Republicans also typically support racial profiling. Republicans support vouchers, some privitization of social security, and are against affirmative action. Those on the far right may favor individual freedoms but dont support gay marriage and are pro life.

 

[FeathersMcGraw]

Strictly speaking, the Republican party is conservative because it favors a strict interpretation of the law (i.e. "letter of the law") and minimal government. The Democratic party is liberal because it favors a broader interpretation of the law (i.e. "spirit of the law") and expanded powers of government to provide social services (at least, since the Franklin Delano Roosevelt administration).

In practice, the Republican party favors laissez-faire economic policy and traditional Christian moral social values. The Democratic party favors government regulation of business and restrictions on the government acting against social freedoms.

The problem is that given the wide variety of public policy issues, both economic and social, you'll obviously have people whose opinions vary within the major political parties, so just hearing "Republican" or "Democrat" is essentially useless for determining where a party member stands on a particular issue, despite what the opposing party would have you think.

 

[Slikkster]

I'm disenchanted with party politics. What it really boils down to is they both want power. It's become a game. Having power and keeping power. This is why fewer and fewer people identify themselves as either Republican or Democrat, and why even fewer bother to vote.

People claim to find huge differences between the two so-called ideologies. But if you looked at both of them in the greater context of world politics on a scale of left and right, American Republicans and Democrats would be very close. It's all a matter of context.

Consider this: If you're being sought after as a voter by a Republican or Democrat by a Senate candidate, what is it they really try to hook you on? They try to run on how much $$$ they are going to bring your state. Pork projects that every other voter in every other state has to subsidize. The party doesn't matter. They all do it.

The simple difference between the two is that Democrats try to appeal mainly to lower income groups because they are the ones who are supposedly unspoken for. Republicans try to appeal to the groups that already "have" theirs (wealth, status, etc.). The Democrats want a bit of economic distribution. The GOP wants a bit of total self-reliance.


In my view, there's got to be an intelligent better ground.

Re: Capitalism as the best economic structure for a country... well, if the entire world were capitalistic, where would that leave us? I'd be interested to see and hear how Capitalism could work on a worldwide basis. For example, most of our manufacturing now is shipped to third-world countries because of cheap labor. What if labor wasn't cheap anywhere anymore? How would we prosper?
How would we not have perpetual inflation? Capitalism seems to require a methodology to produce goods cheaply and being able to sell at a profit. But that doesn't help the poor stiff doing the manufacturing. This isn't my knock on Capitalism. I wouldn't want any other system. I'm just trying to show that no economic system devised yet is perfect in any way.

 

[Zebo]

In defining the differences between liberalism and conservatism, there are five main political spectrums to consider. These are:

1. Individualism vs. Altruism
2. Anarchy vs. Organization
3. Democracy vs. Constitutionalism
4. Equality vs. Merit
5. Competition vs. Cooperation

Let's define each spectrum, and see where liberalism and conservatism reside on them.

Spectrum One: Individualism vs. Altruism

An individualist (in this case) is someone who is 100 percent self-interested. An altruist is someone who is 100 percent interested in the well-being of others. Of course, there is a spectrum between these two positions.

There are many ways to believe in pure individualism and still allow that individuals can cooperate in the sort of interdependent, specialized society that makes us all richer. Libertarians and extreme conservatives believe in the "invisible hand," a term coined by 18th century economist Adam Smith. In his desire to get rich, a baker bakes bread for hundreds of people, and in this he is led by an "invisible hand" to feed society, even though such altruistic notions were not part of his original intention. When individuals are allowed to seek their own rewards, the argument goes, the common interest naturally takes care of itself. No central authority needs to consciously promote the common interest.

But liberals can be pure individualists too. They point out that the "invisible hand" is an important concept, but it hardly works in all cases. The criminal seeks his own self-interest, yet causes harm to society. A polluter finds it cheaper to dump pollution than to treat it, and this self-interest is equally harmful to society. Because it is in the self-interest of individuals to live in crime-free and pollution-free societies, they have a need to defend the common interest. In short, there are selfish reasons to promote the common good through government.

A good many other people, however, believe that humans are not 100 percent individualists; rather, they naturally possess a degree of genuine altruism as well. Perhaps the clearest example is romantic and sexual behavior, which is genetic (hormonal). The resulting social union of man and woman is responsible for the creation of new individuals in the first place. And nature has given us maternal and paternal instincts which cause us to sacrifice unselfishly for the survival of our children. This school of thought claims there are also non-family examples of natural altruism as well. These arguments will be addressed in a later section.

Spectrum Two: Anarchy vs. Organization

There are many definitions of anarchy, but for our purposes here let us define it as no laws and no governments. Competition is the main characteristic of such a society. It's survival of the fittest -- kill or be killed.

This is not to say that order and cooperative groups do not arise in anarchy; after all, order and cooperative groups seems to have arisen spontaneously in the anarchy of nature. It's just that they are not centrally planned. (Or appear to be.)

In a perfectly organized society, a central organization plans every aspect of life. Cooperation and coordination are its primary traits. Most people entertain the mistaken belief that the centralized government needed to run such a society can only be a dictatorship, but this is hardly true. A highly centralized government can also be democratic, as proven by the social democracies of Northern Europe. (If this is difficult to picture, then imagine a country where people vote on literally everything, from the price of tea to the safety features of automobiles. The government then puts these ballot results into action.) Nor does the central organization have to be a government; theoretically, it could also be a giant business monopoly (like "The Company" in the movie Aliens.)

Anarchy is the ultimate in individual freedom (meaning individuals can do anything they want); a democratically organized society is the ultimate in group freedom (meaning that the majority can do anything it wants). However, most people desire neither of these extremes, and prefer their government to be somewhere in the middle of this spectrum.

A common philosophy of moderation is this: government should support and promote those forms of individual freedom and self-interest which advance the common interest, and prevent those forms of individual freedom and self-interest which harm it.

Although this philosophy is widespread, few people agree on how it should be implemented. Conservatives, for instance, believe that government should allow the invisible hand to work on the free market -- an example of self-interest that advances the common interest. And they believe that government should prevent and punish crime -- an example of self-interest that harms the common interest.

Liberals, on the other hand, believe that government can actively promote, not just allow, the free market. For example, the government can build roads, wire the countryside for electricity and phone service, launch communication satellites and provide economic statistics, all of which allow the free market to flourish. (Conservatives tend to believe these should privatized, but whether this is even possible is one of the controversies we shall explore later on.)

And liberals believe that the government should be more active in preventing harmful self-interest. For example, they believe government should regulate corporate polluters. Conservatives oppose this, but it is inconsistent with the very philosophy that generates their position on crime.

Spectrum Three: Democracy vs. Constitutionalism

Democracy has been with us for thousands of years, but most of these experiments have ended badly. It was the rise of individual rights in the 18th century, as protected by the Constitution, that has distinguished the United States and made it such a successful democracy. (At least so far!)

The Founding Fathers also knew that democracy only works if the voters are educated. But in the 18th century, the overwhelming majority of Americans were illiterate. So they created a representative democracy, or a republic, in which laws were voted upon not by the people, but their elected representatives. For this reason, the United States is technically not a pure democracy, but a constitutional republic -- a fact which conservatives are always quick to point out.

Many of the Founders advocated a government where representative democracy, the constitution and the courts form a system of checks and balances. The entire rational behind such a triangular system is to prevent too much power from accumulating in any one segment of society. We all know the old adage: power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Liberals acknowledge the value of all three corners of this system. If anything, they would argue that democracy could be strengthened, because mass education has largely wiped out illiteracy in America. Therefore, more direct forms of democracy are possible, like state or even national referendums. More radical liberals advocate replacing our representative democracy with a direct one -- but there is a real question of whether or not the people are that educated.

Conservatives, on the other hand, argue that the constitution should be strengthened, and democracy proportionately weakened. Why? Because they perceive that the Constitution gives them the individual freedom to act however they want, as long as they don't violate other people's individual freedom. Democracy, on the other hand, often tells individuals what to do. If a law you voted against is passed, your personal will is denied. In other words, democracy forces individuals in the minority to act in the interest of the majority, which is why conservatives tend to oppose it. Libertarians take this opposition to an extreme.

Spectrum Four: Equality vs. Merit

The debate between equality vs. merit is one of the oldest in our society. When merit is rewarded, competition becomes supreme, the fittest survive, and people get what they deserve. When rewards are given out equally, people become more pleasant and civilized to each other, but incentive falls, since trying harder doesn't get you anywhere.

For classification purposes, there are three types of societies: egalitarian, moderated meritocracy, and unrestricted meritocracy.

Socialism is the best example of an egalitarian society. When Marx wrote "From each according to his ability, and to each according to his needs," he was acknowledging that people are certainly born with different abilities, but they should be rewarded equally.

Libertarianism is the closest example of an unrestricted meritocracy, where there are the fewest constraints on the fittest reaching the top. Unfortunately, we have no historical examples of such a government.

Conservatism and liberalism are examples of moderated meritocracies. In a moderated meritocracy, the most successful continue to be rewarded the most, but a percentage of their power or income is redistributed back to the middle and lower class. Liberals, who lean more towards equality, believe the degree of redistribution should be rather high; conservatives, who lean more towards merit, believe that it should be rather low. In our economy, a progressive tax code achieves this effect, and liberals and conservatives argue over how steep its progressivity should be.

Spectrum Five: Competition vs. Cooperation

In general, the right favors competition; the left, cooperation.

The advantage of competition is that it drives humans to their maximum potential and maximum performance. The disadvantage of competition is that it can be destructive.

The advantage of cooperation is that we are all stronger together than we are separately. The disadvantage of cooperation is that it diminishes incentive, since trying harder than the next person will not achieve anything.

There is a complex interplay between competition and cooperation in human society (and, indeed, in all animal life). It is possible to engineer society to emphasize competition (by emphasizing the individual) or to emphasize cooperation (by emphasizing society). Finding the right mix requires an accurate understanding of the roots of competition and cooperation, as well as a knowledge of game theory (which is the science of competition and cooperation).

I did not write this: link herehttp://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-liberalism.htm

 

[Ornery]

Very close, eh Slikkster?

IMO, the thing this country needs most is the economy to pick up. Not much a president can do about that, though Bush says the tax cuts will do the trick. I doubt they'll do much to help the economy, if anything, but I'm happy to have them either way. The second thing we need bad, is jobs. The GOP will do everything possible to nurture businesses large and small. That's where the jobs come from. That's NOT very close to the way Democrats treat businesses, is it?

Thanks for that pile of info Zebo. Looks pretty accurate to me!

 

[Kelemvor]

Years ago there was a distinct difference in the two. These days the lines are so blurred it really doesn't matter to most people I know. I don't pay any attention to if someone is a Republican, Democrat, Independant, or whatever else they could be.

 

[phatj]

If you really want to know the about the parties, don't ask us... we'll mostly just give you our slanted view of the issue. Form an intelligent viewpoint by reading and researching

 

[Tom]

There are tremendous differences between the two parties, those differences have evolved over the years. This is not a complete catalog of the differences, just some I want to mention. These are from the point of view of a Democrat, probably obvious..

1. corporate power. Republican politicians basically give business 100% of what they want. Democrats give them 95% of what they want. That 5% difference is basically all that protects consumers, workers, and the enviroment, from being completely at the mercy of corporate power.

2. religion. Democrats are pretty firm in what I would call the conservative position that religion should be practiced by individuals, not governments. Republicans for the past 20 years or so have become quite radical in the desire to inject a particular religious philosophy into the government sphere. This includes things like denying women's rights on the basis of religious beliefs.

3. military. Democrats believe that the military should be under civilian control of elected representatives. I'm not sure what Republicans who are in the military believe about this anymore.

 

[clamum]

Libertarian > both