NationStates Jolt Archive

Just looking at Democrats and Republicans in the US, although I bet that there's the same problem in a few other countries.

Republicans claim they are for less central government, and more individual freedoms. They use this argument to vote for tax cuts, less gun control, fewer social programs, the elimination of affirmative action, etc.

They argue on the basis that the less central control, the better.

Then they turn around and want to legislate abortion restrictions, stop gay marriage, suppress legal protest, and collect information on everyone.

Democrats claim that they are also for personal freedom, with more central government. They want more free speech, but only of the politically correct type. They claim to be for individual freedom, but want to suppress religion (don't deny it - they're not interested in separation - they are interested in suppression). They want a woman to have the freedom to have an abortion, but they don't want people to exercise 2nd Amendment freedoms.

All in all, both parties are full of crap, and both have lies as the foundation of their philosophical viewpoints. They both propose to represent certain philosophical outlooks, but both are so inconsistent that each party resembles the other.

Even more interesting, if you talk with a conservative, or a liberal, when backed into a corner, they are more likely to resort to personal attacks than any cogent argument (such argument made extremely difficult by the inconsistent philosophy of each party). And people who are loyal to either party claim (even here on this forum, dear friend) that "their" party is not the party of lies and obfuscation.

I think that they both sit on a throne of lies.

Just looking at Democrats and Republicans in the US, although I bet that there's the same problem in a few other countries.

Republicans claim they are for less central government, and more individual freedoms. They use this argument to vote for tax cuts, less gun control, fewer social programs, the elimination of affirmative action, etc.

They argue on the basis that the less central control, the better.

Then they turn around and want to legislate abortion restrictions, stop gay marriage, suppress legal protest, and collect information on everyone.

Democrats claim that they are also for personal freedom, with more central government. They want more free speech, but only of the politically correct type. They claim to be for individual freedom, but want to suppress religion (don't deny it - they're not interested in separation - they are interested in suppression). They want a woman to have the freedom to have an abortion, but they don't want people to exercise 2nd Amendment freedoms.

All in all, both parties are full of crap, and both have lies as the foundation of their philosophical viewpoints. They both propose to represent certain philosophical outlooks, but both are so inconsistent that each party resembles the other.

Even more interesting, if you talk with a conservative, or a liberal, when backed into a corner, they are more likely to resort to personal attacks than any cogent argument (such argument made extremely difficult by the inconsistent philosophy of each party). And people who are loyal to either party claim (even here on this forum, dear friend) that "their" party is not the party of lies and obfuscation.

I think that they both sit on a throne of lies.

One of the main factors I do believe is the simple fact that we cram such a wide array of beliefs into 2 parties

Even within themselves parties don’t agree people have to pick one or the other and a large minority or majority can lean towards not accepting a viewpoint on a specific topic
(like I said just one factor)

First, the democrats are not trying to suppress religion. That is completely illogical when you consider that a large majority of democrats are religious.

Second, a lot of republicans believe that gay marriage should be up to the state. Which means that they still don't want to allow it, but stick to their original philosophy of decentralized government.

But pretty much both parties are crap. They just try to work out plans to appeal to more voting blocks without alienating the ones they already have.

Politicians don't serve anymore, they work the game to make money. Government isn't about public service, its about career building.

Political parties, by their nature, are carved out of numerous factions. A common misconception is that the Democratic Party is liberal. Why then do 90% of blacks vote Democratic, surely blacks are at least as conservative as the general population.

Minorities, union workers, college students, and single women form large chunks of the Democratic Party, each with their own beliefs and emphases. Thus the inconsistencies.

You could argue that liberalism (more correctly called welfare liberalism or modern liberalism) is itself inconsistent. I think there are strains of liberalism that are unnecessarily authoritarian and conflict with basic liberal ideals.

As for the Republican Party, there is a somewhat shaky alliance of poor socially conservative religious voters, and upper class socially moderate businessmen who like low taxes. The infighting there produces some inconsistencies, sure.

Conservatism itself runs the spectrum as well, from the imperialists to the Constitutionalists, to the Theocrats.

And of course, libertarians, who tend to side with the Democrats if they value social freedoms more, and with the Republicans if they value economic freedoms more.

Political parties can't be consistent because that would be simple and frankly, the world isn't simple.

The world is a large and complex place which has little room for moral absolutes. Most people would agree that killing other people is wrong, but many would also accept that sometimes wars happen and that people will regretably be killed in 'em. Many other such examples exist.

I'd have a lot more time for politics and politicians if they were honest about this and admitted that they do their best but that sometimes things won't work out as planned and that sometimes they'll have to drop ideas which didn't work and that sometimes they'll make mistakes.

Unfortunately, because large swathes of the population of all the countries I know anything about think that every problem has a solution and are egged on in this delusion by the media and religions which promise that all will be well if they obey, politicians have to follow or be in the wilderness.

Shame, but that's how it is.

One of the main factors I do believe is the simple fact that we cram such a wide array of beliefs into 2 parties

Even within themselves parties don’t agree people have to pick one or the other and a large minority or majority can lean towards not accepting a viewpoint on a specific topic
(like I said just one factor)
Question answered.

Even the names of the parties is strange

Democrat: An advocate of democracy and enemy of authoriterianism
Republican: An enemy of monarchy and authoritarianism and avocate of democracy

:confused: :confused:

Question answered.
Though it poses another question … how many parties must there be to be truly representative of every feeling of their constituents

( would say the same as the population … no two people believe all the same things to the same extent)

Though it poses another question … how many parties must there be to be truly representative of every feeling of their constituents

( would say the same as the population … no two people believe all the same things to the same extent)
Very true, at some point every party member will have to compromise on some personal belief. The only parties to succesfully have a consistent philosophy are those that ask for the individual to give up some freedom. A trade off for access to power if you like. There is no perfect number but it would seem likely that three is better than two as it allows more balance. However it all depends on your own opinion ;)

The two party system has led to major abuses and very often can put people at an awkard choice as to which of their political ideals are more important. I think the nation would be much better off with a wider variety of parties with actual power instead of having all the decisions made by two major parties (both of which, imo, greatly suck).

The way I see it, there are four kinds of people in the major parties: fiscally inclined, socially inclined, hard-core followers, and overall moderates.

Examples in US politics:
fiscally-inclined Republican: John Sununu
fiscally-inclined Democrat: John Edwards
socially-inclined Democrat: Herb Kohl
socially-inclined Republican: Alan Keyes
hard-core Democrat: Dennis Kucinich
hard-core Republican: Bill Frist
moderate Democrat: Evan Bayh
moderate Republican: Susan Collins

The reason this seems to occur is Republicans generally want less government restrictions on the economy, but more government restrictions on social issues. Democrats generally want a more regulated economy, but freer civil liberties.

The persistent 'law' if you will in politics is that mass parties which try to appeal to the greatest and widest selection of voters; always alter their ideological principles accordingly.
Unfortunately, this causes all political parties to moderate and they become too similar; the resulting 'lack' of choice is one of the primary causes of voter apathy and falling turnout....

They claim to be for individual freedom, but want to suppress religion (don't deny it - they're not interested in separation - they are interested in suppression).


I havent seen it, please, elaborate
Even more interesting, if you talk with a conservative, or a liberal....

Why must Conservative=republican and Liberal=democrat if neither is a true representation of conservatives or liberals

Because then they would have no power.

Because then they would have no power.

under the rules currently in place.

there is no room for philosophical purity under the big tents required to win seats in "first past the post" elections.

Though it poses another question … how many parties must there be to be truly representative of every feeling of their constituents

( would say the same as the population … no two people believe all the same things to the same extent)

while we may all have a different set of beliefs, at least some of us will agree entirely on any particular issue, and many others will not care or hold a strong opinion on it at all. if we had a system based on deliberative direct democracy we might see loose coalitions of people who agree with each other to a greater or lesser degree coordinate their efforts to convince others. not exactly parties per se, but a number of fluid and temporary 'bargaining blocs'. after all, parties largely exist because of the organizing needs of representative politics - particularly for funding candidates to win races and the existence of power-wielding leadership positions within the government that go to whoever has the best organized support.