Difference between Republicans and Democrats
I think it was Charles Krauthammer who first said that the difference between Republicans and Democrats is that Republicans believe that Democrats are wrong and Democrats believe that Republicans are evil.
You cannot really understand the politics of the last quarter century without keeping that thought in mind.
You cannot really understand the politics of the last quarter century without keeping that thought in mind.
posted by Stan at 11:29 AM
12 Comments:
I second the welcome....as the second commentor!!
Stan, as a faithful powerline reader, kudos to you on your own blog. Another observation that I have is that truly liberal Democrats consider their viewpoints mainstream. Therefore,anyone to the right of them is an extremist in their view. The other is that they're dealing with a monster of their own making. How many other groups, be they animals or trees or terrorist are being denied their constitutional rights? Without another cause to fight for, their current reason for existence evaporates. They continue to fight for causes that have already been won. If there isn't a cause to champion or an enemy to fight over it, they'll invent one. Hence, all conservatives and Republicans are evil.
Love your blog! Congratulations on starting it up. Followed the link on Powerline and so glad I did. What a treat to read many of the things I'm thinking instead of screaming at the MSM idiots on TV. Another difference between Republicans and Democrats - Republicans read the First Amendment and see freedom OF religion while Democrats read freedom FROM religion. The Dems will have a hard time winning a national election until they change their minds on that issue.
Cheating. It's my son's blog password I'm using. I'm really Assistant Village Idiot.
In addition, there is P.J. O'Rourke: Santa Claus is a Democrat, and God is a Republican. Last line spoiler: there is no Santa Claus.
(Referred here by Betsy Newmark)
Some good observations, beginning with the original post. But R.L. Dabney said it best--of both viewpoints, liberal v. conservative--in the 19th century when he remarked,
"American conservatism is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition... "
Ed Morissey commented on President Bush's innauguration speech yesterday that it was classically liberal (something the Democratic party has not been for 35 years or more). And so the Republican party follows the Democratic party "towards perdition"—just dragging its feet a little.
I tend to think of what little contrast still remains between the poles of the One Party as being typical of the differences between the revolutionaries who became the Framers of our constitution and the revolutionaries who birthed the Terror in France. As the Republicans adopt more and more of the Jacobian view of Man, those differences become fewer and smaller, and so "...conservatism... follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition."
There are still differences, but the speech given yesterday by President Bush might as well have come from Franklin Roosevelt. Maybe that's good in the sense that it reflects a viewpoint that's 50+ years "behind" the thinking of the current crop of Democrats, but it isn't the thinking of the Founders and it isn't found in the Framers' wisdom that gave us "A republic, if you can keep it," as Franklin quipped.
Politics is the art of the practical. Breaking one's lance jousting with windmills won't advance the cause. If you view Bush's philosophy in the context of the political attitudes which prevail around the world, he is much closer to the founders than anyone else. I think there is much to be said for his approach.
The difference between
Republicans and Democrats is that republicans can't get past tradition and open their minds. For example, I see no problem with marrying the person, same-sex or not, who you are in love with. By not allowing this country's homosexuals to live a free life, and to not allow them the same priveledges of heterosexuals, you are treating them as inferiors. This country is based on the equality of all, and if EVERYONE is not allowed to marry the one they love who loves them in return, that means that all this country stands for means nothing. By treating homosexuals as inferiors, you are inspiring hatred and contempt for them, resulting in the many horrible murders and abuse that gay children of today are forced to face. As for abortion, an unborn baby has no thoughts or feelings. Which is more important- an unhuman fetus or the entire future of a young woman who has is forced to give up on her life?
For a party of thinkers, you Republicans sure do seem to eschew actually making coherent arguments. However clever you may think they are, snarky Coulter-esque witticisms don't prove anything.
so i like what people have said and all, but i wonder...is there a REAL difference between democrats and republicans...i mean, i know some of the veiws are different and stuff, and i know that republican ends in "I Can" and democrat ends in "rat", but really...what IS the REAL difference between the two (other then the arguments of "democrats aren't thinkers", "republicans are peace hating people" and all that other research lagging egotistical narrow minded bullshit that i keep hearing)...i mean honestly, aren't we all just independents? Don't we all want the same thing for America-stong econonmy, peace, low crime, no poor/homeless people, educated and healthy children, ect (which is all ideologic)-but we just have different ideas on how to get it? someone, please, tell me, what is the REAL differnce?....WE ARE ALL THE SAME!
I have read some of the comments made. I do not consider myself a "Republican" however nor do I consider myself a "Democrat" which is why I aptly registered as an "Independent"--whatever you wish to badmouth that as, you can do so with my permission (towards me, of course.)
I have been labeled by both sides as a "Social Democrat". I have voted for Democrats, Republicans, Independents, and a Socialist in my time of being a registered voter. I do not vote for "party", I vote for the person who I feel will best represent the position in which they are seeking. I feel that's the main problem with the "Republican/Democrat" party(s) -- they are looking at things through "party eyes" when they should be seeing things that will better represent the whole rather than themselves. At least, that's my opinion from reading such discussions, newspapers, and watching the news (both republican and democratic (and non-party) programs), from the point-of-view I've obtained over the years.
I, personally, am against "abortion" yet I believe a woman has a right to choose on whether she wishes to have a child or not--but to an extent. If she've been pregnant for 3 months or more than I feel she had chosen to have the child and she shouldn't be able to abort the child unless her life/health is detrimental. I do not feel that abortion should be used as a type of contraceptive, that whole ideology seems illogical. But, I still feel that a woman should have a say to her own body, in the end.
I believe in raising taxes to a degree. The U.S. has many programs and to keep a lot of those programs still in effect while other programs or situations are happening (such as 'war') and to keep these programs in effect (and other factors) taxes need to be raised. But, I think it should be applied more to the "State" itself than the Nation. There's more to that opinion but I don't believe there's room here (could be, don't know?)
I do not believe in the taking a life--any life. That includes the Death Penalty. I realize that some men/women should be put to death for the betterment of society yet if the one who is executed isn't definitively guilty--then how do you know he/she's really guilty? There have been (in the past) people who have been put to death who did not commit the crime. And this is true now, this will be true in the future. If it was definitive then I'd be for it if rehabilitation was impropable.
Healthcare is important and I do not believe either party does it Justice. It's a tricky thing to handle and both fail, I feel. There should be bi-partisan on Healthcare that way, I feel, it could be better handled.
I am not evil, I am not bad yet when Republicans hear some of my views: they think this ('cause they tell me) and when Democrats hear some of my views that they aren't for: same reaction.
There are Republicans have "Democratic" views and there are Democrats who have "Republican" views.
Fighting about it, pointing fingers, etc., only draws people apart not together.
So, whereas most above say Democrats are wrong or evil I say: both are.
:)
I have a qualm with a comment made, which I will show for sake of simplicity:
"Anonymous said...
The difference between
Republicans and Democrats is that republicans can't get past tradition and open their minds. For example, I see no problem with marrying the person, same-sex or not, who you are in love with. By not allowing this country's homosexuals to live a free life, and to not allow them the same priveledges of heterosexuals, you are treating them as inferiors. This country is based on the equality of all, and if EVERYONE is not allowed to marry the one they love who loves them in return, that means that all this country stands for means nothing. By treating homosexuals as inferiors, you are inspiring hatred and contempt for them, resulting in the many horrible murders and abuse that gay children of today are forced to face. As for abortion, an unborn baby has no thoughts or feelings. Which is more important- an unhuman fetus or the entire future of a young woman who has is forced to give up on her life?" -A
To get specifics out of the way, because I know these things are just SO important to people, I am neither republican or democrat. While I am a christian, and generally the christian viewpoint frowns apon homosexuality, I happen to agree with your stance. They do, indeed, deserve equal rights under law. Not allowing them to marry is tantamount to the various offenses against the black people in the '50's. They suffered the same restricted rights.
I personallly believe homosexuality is a choice, and an unnessassary one at that. But, that said, just because I have philosphical and theological differences with homosexuals does not mean that they shouldn't be allowed the same rights afforded to myself. Christian Doctrine should not be the guiding force of law in this country. That was the whole idea behind seperation of church and state. Believing homosexuality is immoral is one thing, but using beleif, and religion, to push preventative measures against an entire community is startlingly unfair. The Government exists to serve the majority, but not at the expense of the rights of the minority.
That said, I harshly agree with the stance taken here on abortion. Firstly, there is no proof one way or another that a fetus can't feel or think, and there is proof that late term fetuses, also known as unborn humans, can. For the sake of argument, I'll take it with a grain of salt. Lets assume that the fetus cannot think or feel. Why should it be denied the oppurtunity to do so? Should the fetus be destroyed and robbed of life (if not in present, then in future) because of the burden that would be placed upon the parent? Usually unwanted pregnancies that make a woman consider abortion are created because of the woman's irresponsibility. I see no reason why this behavior should be rewarded by removing the consequences, lest of all by murder. Lastly, fetuses, only weeks after conception, do have a limited capacity to feel and think. One can argue that it is only on a menial level. To this I have one statement: many mentally retarded people do not think or feel on a level much higher than that of the fetus. It is a diminished feeling, and diminished thinking, but life nonetheless. Should we too murder the mentally retarded, because they may be an inconvienece on the lifestyles of their caretakes?
Democrats protracted WW1 and WW2, causing a greater loss of life and harm to the global economy. Republicans such as Eisenhower, Patton, and MacAuthor won the peace and had the life principles to preserve it for a generation.
Democrats protracted the conflict in Vietnam, again creating a greater loss of life and economic bloodshed than needed. Republicans again took charge of their failures and restored a sense of peace. Siagon stood on it's own for 3 years after Nixon's withdraw. Until of course a Democratic majority Congress slit our allies throats and defunded the support they needed.
The war in Iraq, protracted for 12 long years by Democratic party leadership. Today, Republicans again, have taken the initiative and resolve to take the hard course to finally quell the violence and foster peace in a region made worse by failed Democratic party policies neglect.
When will we ever learn.
- Concerned ex-Democrat
Post a Comment
<< Home