- #1
Ted Baiamonte
Since 1800 the central issue has been freedom versus government. Is this correct; should all elections be framed this way?
Antiphon said:This isn't a good way to frame it. Without government you can't have freedom just anarchy and rule by force.
Antiphon said:The essential issue today is whether the government has the authority to tell your children what to eat becuase you might not have the sense to do it right (Democrat vision) or whether people should be allowed to fail as well as succeed in their daily lives without government intervention (Republican vision).
turbo said:This thread won't last long.
Is there no fundamental difference between Republican capitalist health care and single- payer Obamacare? At heart Republicans admire Jefferson and Rand while Democrats admire Marx and Engles. The difference is very fundamental but not very obvious in a democracy with so many confused in the middle.Valdyr said:There isn't much of an "issue" at all in world-historical terms; both are varieties of bourgeois, republican (little-r) liberal capitalist Mkparliamentarism, to use a mouthful of acronyms. Whatever difference that exists is over minutiae of running such a society; the fundamental organization of society is not even remotely the question.
Ted Baiamonte said:Is there no fundamental difference between Republican capitalist health care and single- payer Obamacare? At heart Republicans admire Jefferson and Rand while Democrats admire Marx and Engles. The difference is very fundamental but not very obvious in a democracy with so many confused in the middle.
Ted Baiamonte said:1)I can't imagine that eating is the essential issue. 2) I can't imagine that anyone would assume government necessarily has the sense to tell us what to eat in light of a history chock full of government errors. Lastly, stated more conceptually, what you have said is that the essential issue is: freedom versus government.
"It is a fundamental Republican impulse to expose people to the consequences of their actions."Antiphon said:It is not freedom vs. government.
It is a fundamental Democrat impulse to shield people from the consequences of their actions.
It is a fundamental Republican impulse to expose people to the consequences of their actions.
Now that I've spelled out the abstraction for you, do you agree or disagree?
The eating business is literal as well: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/02/15/school-lunch-guidelines-p_n_1278803.html
Ted Baiamonte said:Is there no fundamental difference between Republican capitalist health care and single- payer Obamacare?
daveb said:I'd say the essential issue is that Democrats (in general) believe Republicans have the wrong idea on how to run the country, and Republicans (in general) believe Democrats have the wrong idea. beyond that, it gets kinda murky.
Both are right.daveb said:I'd say the essential issue is that Democrats (in general) believe Republicans have the wrong idea on how to run the country, and Republicans (in general) believe Democrats have the wrong idea. beyond that, it gets kinda murky.
Vanadium 50 said:Anyone who thinks there is a single issue that divides the two major political parties and that this issue has been constant for two centuries is unaware of both history and political science. Indeed, neither party has been around "since 1800".
In fact, Jefferson founded the Democratic-Republican party, not the Republican party. The Democratic-Republican party was the predecessor of the Democratic party and not the Republicans.Ted Baiamonte said:In fact, Jefferson founded the Republican party in 1792 with Madison.
D H said:In fact, Jefferson founded the Democratic-Republican party, not the Republican party. The Democratic-Republican party was the predecessor of the Democratic party and not the Republicans.
http://millercenter.org/president/jeffersonTed Baiamonte said:There is no primary source to support you. I gave you Congressional Record above and quote from book on subject by famous historian. Jefferson gave a million speeches and wrote a million letters. He was not a Democratic-Republican. It seems only liberal historians want to confuse the founding to make Democrats fit into it.
If you can find a primary source saying Jefferson's party was called Democratic-Republican party in the 18th Century I would be forever in your debt. I would not invest too much time though, if I were you.
http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/brief-biography-thomas-jeffersonIn 1796, as the presidential candidate of the Democratic Republicans, he [Thomas Jefferson] became vice-president after losing to John Adams by three electoral votes.
Ted Baiamonte said:There is no primary source to support you. I gave you Congressional Record above and quote from book on subject by famous historian. Jefferson gave a million speeches and wrote a million letters. He was not a Democratic-Republican. It seems only liberal historians want to confuse the founding to make Democrats fit into it.
If you can find a primary source saying Jefferson's party was called Democratic-Republican party in the 18th Century I would be forever in your debt. I would not invest too much time though, if I were you.
BobG said:This part is true. The term "Democratic-Republican" was applied after the fact to differentiate the earlier Republican Party from the modern Republican Party.
BobG said:But, it's applied because, organizationally, both modern parties originated from the earlier Republican Party.
turbo said:This thread won't last long.
There are not "two sides" to every complex issue. We all live in a social continuum that evolves continuously. People that get their "news" exclusively from biased sources really have no appreciation for this. There are those on the right that rail against the "liberal media", though ABC, NBC, and CBS are owned by huge corporations. They have no real motivation to offend their advertisers, and they are about as middle-of-the road as one could expect. I'm glad that we have bloggers and Internet sources to provide some balance.edward said:Hmm it looks like it was Ted that didn't last long.
Here is a good Bill Moyers show on the topic.
http://billmoyers.com/episode/how-do-conservatives-and-liberals-see-the-world/
There are several questionnaires to click on at the bottom of the page.
I was a bit surprised to see that on one of them I scored higher than the average liberal in two parts and higher than the average conservative on the other three.
edward said:I was a bit surprised to see that on one of them I scored higher than the average liberal in two parts and higher than the average conservative on the other three.
Ted Baiamonte said:At heart Republicans admire Jefferson and Rand while Democrats admire Marx and Engles.
Minor quible but the last part should be statists rather than communists. All communists are statists but not all statists are communists (with the exception of the exceptions like anarcho communists).joewein said:Republicans (conservatives) tend to espouse less government control on economic issues but more on moral choices. Libertarians (or classic liberals) want less government, period. Social democrats (or "Liberals" in US newspeak) favour more government on economic issues but less on personal (moral) choices. Communists want the state in control of both economic and personal issues.
Ryan_m_b said:Minor quible but the last part should be statists rather than communists. All communists are statists but not all statists are communists (with the exception of the exceptions like anarcho communists).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_communismStateless communism, also known as pure communism, is the post-capitalist stage of society which Karl Marx predicted would inevitably result from the development of the productive forces. Stateless communism is closely related and connected to world communism.
Strictly speaking, pure communism is a stage of social development where material and productive forces are advanced to a degree where actual freedom (freedom from necessity, and thus from wage labor and alienation from work) for every person is possible.[citation needed] The state apparatus becomes redundant because classes cease to exist.[1]^
Very true, I was more thinking of real life examples rather than theory but you've got a point.vici10 said:To say this is to forget that Lenin wrote about "withering away of the state" and Marx saw communism as stateless. From wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_communism
That's far to extreme a suggestion and doesn't take into account the complexity highlighted by joewein above. AIUI the Republican party contains both conservatives and libertarians whereas the Democrat party is set up more for liberals. Consequently the latter is more of a mixed market social democrat party than a socialist party and the former whilst it does contain Laissez Faire principles does not uniformly apply them.Tosh5457 said:Socialism vs Laissez Faire I'd say.
joewein said:I think you're confusing the Republicans with the Libertarians, and the Democrats with the Communists, but other than that you are correct ;-)
You can not reduce politics to a single dimension such as government control vs individual freedom. It takes at least a two dimensional matrix to describe political issues.
Republicans (conservatives) tend to espouse less government control on economic issues but more on moral choices. Libertarians (or classic liberals) want less government, period. Social democrats (or "Liberals" in US newspeak) favour more government on economic issues but less on personal (moral) choices. Communists want the state in control of both economic and personal issues.
There is more overlap between the two major parties in the US than politicians would have you believe, just witness how wars started under a president from one party tend to carry over far into the presidency of another.
Ted Baiamonte said:Since 1800 the central issue has been freedom versus government. Is this correct; should all elections be framed this way?
The essential issue between Democrats and Republicans is their differing ideologies and beliefs on how government should function. Democrats generally support a larger government role in social and economic policies, while Republicans advocate for smaller government and individual responsibility.
Democrats tend to have more liberal views on social issues such as abortion, LGBTQ+ rights, and gun control. Republicans, on the other hand, tend to hold more conservative views on these issues, often aligning with traditional values and religious beliefs.
One of the key differences between Democrats and Republicans is their approach to economic policies. Democrats generally support higher taxes on the wealthy and corporations, as well as government regulation to address social and economic issues. Republicans, on the other hand, advocate for lower taxes and less government intervention in the economy.
Democrats and Republicans have differing views on how the United States should engage with other countries. Democrats tend to prioritize diplomacy and international cooperation, while Republicans often prioritize national security and military strength.
In addition to the main issues mentioned above, Democrats and Republicans also have differing views on immigration, healthcare, and environmental policies. Democrats tend to support more lenient immigration policies, universal healthcare, and stronger environmental regulations, while Republicans often advocate for stricter immigration laws, a more market-based healthcare system, and less government intervention in environmental issues.