What is essential issue between Democrats and Republicans

[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.

 

[turbo]

It is very difficult to justify a two-party dichotomy in the US. For example, I am a fiscal conservative and a progressive on social issues. I really don't fit into either party, and haven't been enrolled in either since I enrolled as a Democrat temporarily to try to sway the result of the caucuses during the Gephardt/Jackson primary campaigns.

My wife and I are independents, and we do not vote for a candidate because there is a D or an R beside their name. Read the papers, watch the news, and try to determine how much of their "positions" are blather and pandering and how much is real, then vote accordingly.

 

[ThomasT]

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

How about the idea that candidates of either party can be expectied to act in the interest of big business and big finance?