What is essential issue between Democrats and Republicans

[Ted Baiamonte]

Since 1800 the central issue has been freedom versus government. Is this correct; should all elections be framed this way?

 

[Antiphon]

This isn't a good way to frame it. Without government you can't have freedom just anarchy and rule by force.

 

[Ted Baiamonte]

This isn't a good way to frame it. Without government you can't have freedom just anarchy and rule by force.

well , organized force would be government. Also, when we say we are against government as Jefferson did, for example, he did not mean it literally, he was not an anarchist, he was just for very very limited government

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).

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.

 

[turbo]

This thread won't last long.

 

[Ted Baiamonte]

This thread won't last long.

please say why?

 

[Valdyr]

There isn't much of an "issue" at all in world-historical terms; both are varieties of bourgeois, republican (little-r) liberal capitalist parliamentarism, 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]

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.

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.

 

[CAC1001]

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.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that Democrats admire Marx and Engels. Some Democrats do, sure, but a great many on the modern left are what are known as social democrats, who want what is called social democracy. And Republicans differ among one another too, some Republicans want an isolationist foreign policy and a military only capable of defensive purposes, and very limited government in the form of regulations and safety nets, whereas others call for a very strong standing military and active foreign policy with a variety of safety nets.

 

[Galteeth]

In my opinion, there is no core essential issue. Rather it is a coalition of competing interest groups who have aligned themselves with different parties. There has also been a successful "branding" of both parties, whereas different social groups see themselves and their theoretical interests as being represented by a party. While both parties will imploy rhetorical propaganda that panders to ideological elements, neither represents any consistent ideology.

 

[Antiphon]

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 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

 

[Galteeth]

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

"It is a fundamental Republican impulse to expose people to the consequences of their actions."

Except when it comes to any of the numerous personal choices republicans want to regulate.

 

[Vanadium 50]

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".

 

[daveb]

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.

 

[Office_Shredder]

Is there no fundamental difference between Republican capitalist health care and single- payer Obamacare?

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/h...andate-was-first-backed-by-conservatives.html

The fact that Republicans can propose an idea that Democrats hate, then Democrats pick it up and have Republicans oppose it is a pretty good example of how close the two parties ideologically in the grand scheme of things

 

[lisab]

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.

And in that way, each party defines the other.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

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.

 

[Ted Baiamonte]

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 Republican party in 1792 with Madison.

Since Jefferson's first attempt to introduce a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution the Republicans have introduced 30 of them, and liberals have killed every one of them! That ought to point up the consistency in the most basic long term ideology of our country and where it had consistently resided.

Here is primary source, "Congressional Record", to get you started if you want to begin your study of American history:


1)5th Congress (1797-1799)
Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 32

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

6th Congress (1799-1801)

Majority Party: Federalist (22 seats)

Minority Party: Republican (10 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Total Seats: 32

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

7th Congress (1801-1803)

Majority Party: Republican (17 seats)

Minority Party: Federalist (15 seats)

Other Parties: 0

Vacant: 2

Total Seats: 34


Always remember you must use primary sources if you want to get to the bottom of this issue. Most historians are liberal so need desperately to deny that the founding ideology was Republican.

"Although people were still deeply ambivalent about political parties, although one party did not necessarily recognize the legitimacy of the other, and although men on both sides were nostalgic- at one time or another- for the imaginary golden age of political harmony, few people could be found in the early 1790's who believed the parties did not exist. The parties had names: Federalist and Republican." -Susan Dunn Ph.D, "Jefferson's Second Revolution".
-

 

[D H]

In fact, Jefferson founded the Republican party in 1792 with Madison.

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]

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.

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]

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

In 1796, as the presidential candidate of the Democratic Republicans, he [Thomas Jefferson] became vice-president after losing to John Adams by three electoral votes.

http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/brief-biography-thomas-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/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/tp&CISOPTR=46379&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]

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.

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]

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

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

But, it's applied because, organizationally, both modern parties originated from the earlier Republican Party.

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]

This thread won't last long.

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-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.

 

[turbo]

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.

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]

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.

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]

At heart Republicans admire Jefferson and Rand while Democrats admire Marx and Engles.

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]

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.

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]

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).

To say this is to forget that Lenin wrote about "withering away of the state" and Marx saw communism as stateless. From wikipedia:

Stateless 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]^

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_communism

 

[Ryan_m_b]

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

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]

Socialism vs Laissez Faire I'd say.

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]

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.

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.

 

[jduster]

Since 1800 the central issue has been freedom versus government. Is this correct; should all elections be framed this way?

The views of the parties have changed over time.

The Democrats were initially the "state's right" party until FDR pushed the New Deal on economic issues and JFK pushed civil rights act for social issues.

Republicans during that time, shifted from a liberal Rockefeller party, reluctant on intervening in foreign affairs, to favoring an aggressive foreign policy.

So there is no parsimonious sentence that could sum up both parties.

Their views shift over time, depending on the political atmosphere.