What is essential issue between Democrats and Republicans

D H

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

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.

Astronuc

http://millercenter.org/president/jefferson
Political Party:Democratic-Republican

http://www.monticello.org/site/jeffe...omas-jefferson


Three references indicating that the current Republican Party was established in 1854.

Interesting book - The origin of the Republican Party
http://content.wisconsinhistory.org/...CISOSHOW=46363

http://www.ushistory.org/gop/origins.htm

http://www.ohiohistorycentral.org/entry.php?rec=975

I'm sure more can be found.

BobG

This part is true. The term "Democratic-Republican" was applied after the fact to differentiate the earlier Republican Party from the modern Republican Party.

But, it's applied because, organizationally, both modern parties originated from the earlier Republican Party. It would be wrong to trace the Republican Party back through history by its attitudes towards economic issues, states' rights, etc, though.

The modern Republican Party and Democratic Party were really defined by their stands on slavery. But even that is misleading. After civil war, the party names stayed the same even if the parties became identified with new issues. Two say the modern Republican Party can be traced all the way back to Jefferson jumps completely over the civil war and completely over the portion of history where the Democrtatic Party was more closely identified with the concept of states' rights.

Jimmy intended humor, but the two original parties give the best impression of what political parties really are: the Federalists and the anti-Federalists. Hamilton was the first to organize a true political party, making his Federalist Party against the other guys. It was only after Federalists started dominating government positions that the "other guys" decided a rival political party was necessary.

Anyone that gets too wrapped up in the history of their political party is really drinking the kool-aid. It's probably better to look at political parties as "brands" of politicians that you can select between rather than a team you join and support no matter what.

Ted Baiamonte

Wow; good for you! Not 1 in a million know about the liberal conspiracy or admit it if they do know.

I'm afraid its applied to give the Democrats a place at the founding they don't deserve. How on earth could modern Democrats originate in any meaningful sense from the Republican Party when they have an opposite philosophy.

Let's always remember that human history is about the struggle between freedom and government; so that will always be the most useful context in which to organize your view of history.

edward

Hmm it looks like it was Ted that didn't last long.

Here is a good Bill Moyers show on the topic. How Do Conservatives and Liberals See the World?

http://billmoyers.com/episode/how-do...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.

turbo

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.

BobG

Must be because you're one of those unprincipled consumers of politicians - you pick which one appeals to you the most with no sense of team loyalty.

A true team player would join either the Republicans or the Democrats and then make sure their views always matched their team. It's easier to vote that way - you don't have to read the names; only the letter that comes after the name.

Bobbywhy

The essential issue between Democrats and Republicans is this:

My ideas are true and correct; I am right.
Your ideas are mistaken and incorrect; you are wrong.

Cheers, Bobbywhy

joewein

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.

Ryan_m_b

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).

vici10

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

Ryan_m_b

Very true, I was more thinking of real life examples rather than theory but you've got a point.

Tosh5457

Socialism vs Laissez Faire I'd say.

Bobbywhy

"One group reads the NYT, listens to progressive talk radio, watches CNN, is pro-choice and anti-gun, wants separation of church and state, favors universal health care, and supports redistribution of the wealth and wants to tax the rich more.

The other group reads the WSJ, listens to conservative talk radio, watches FOX news, is pro-life and anti-gun control, thinks America is a Christian nation that should NOT ban religious expression in the public sphere, is against universal healthcare, and votes against measures to redistribute wealth and tax the rich.

As philosopher John Stuart Mill noted a century and a half ago: "A party of order or stability, and a party of progress or reform, are both necessary elements of a healthy state of political life.""

Excerpts from an article by Michael Shermer, "The Science of Righteousness" in Scientific American, June, 2012

Ryan_m_b

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.

Galteeth

It's more complex then a two dimensional matrix, even though that's closer. I think the polarity of this is favored by political parties, since "brand issues" can exploit tribalist mentalities more easily, (as well as complex calculations that basically make them have to worry less about their own general popularity, i.e., you may not like my positions, but look at how offensive the other guy's positions are.)

I find that the group nature of political organization invariably leads to group think when it comes to morality. Even on what most here might consider the anti-authoritarian fringe, issues tend to get madly polarized (you should see some of the rhetorical viciousness of the OWS/Ron Paul fights.) . Personally I find it very difficult to find any group I can really fully agree with.