Republicans and Democrats

[bytor2112]

I often ponder the great divide in this country. Right or left, red or blue, Republican or Democrat. America is in a huge mess.....a mess caused by politicians. Often well intentioned from both sides of the political aisle, which is why I am a strong supporter of limited government.

Republicans are typically married and white with traditional family values and a tend to have some sort of Judeo-Christian belief system and are usually described as racist, bigoted, homophobic, greedy war mongers.

Democrats are made up of some of the above and also include the vast majority of minorities and single women. They are usually described as godless, baby killers, tax and spend liberals, socialists and the blame America first crowd.

I see two parties that have hood winked the American public. They are two wings of the same bird. Both parties have embraced big, all powerful, intrusive central government, out of control spending and they both love to tax and waste money in the name of inefficient and often and mostly unnecessary government programs.

They have done such a good sales job on the American public that we actually believe there never ending lies and support the party leaders regardless of how detrimental they are to our country. As I have said before, it is like rooting for your favorite football team, regardless of how stupid the players are....except this isn't football. It is our lives and our future generations lives.

Don't be a Democrat or a Republican....be an American....be a Patriot. Throw the bums out!!!

[Wingnut]

...and are usually described as racist, bigoted, homophobic, greedy war mongers.

Democrats are made up of some of the above...

[Maxel]

The whole Democrat/Republican 'divide' (as seen in modern American politics) reminds me of a quote from C.S. Lewis (which I will now write from memory and probably butcher):

"The devil sends errors into the world in pairs, pairs of opposites. He depends on one's especial dislike of one error to push him into accepting the opposite error."

It seems that in this case, all that's needed is the appearance of opposing ideology among the parties, and most people will flock to whichever party holds the social morals and values they agree with.

[DigitalShadow]

Don't be a Democrat or a Republican....be an American....be a Patriot. Throw the bums out!!!

So you advocate anarchy?

I agree with what you said above, but I'm not really sure what you're advocating here.

[Wingnut]

Don't be a Democrat or a Republican....be an American....be a Patriot. Throw the bums out!!!

So you advocate anarchy?

I agree with what you said above, but I'm not really sure what you're advocating here.

Yeah, I agreed with everything else in the OP, but this line kinda threw me for a loop.

[Just_A_Guy]

So you advocate anarchy?

I agree with what you said above, but I'm not really sure what you're advocating here.

Libertarianism, of course!

Seriously--I don't see how you get anarchy from what Bytor advocates. He's saying we should abandon allegiance to party, not government. There is a difference.

[bytor2112]

Libertarianism, of course!

Seriously--I don't see how you get anarchy from what Bytor advocates. He's saying we should abandon allegiance to party, not government. There is a difference.

Exactly!

[DigitalShadow]

Libertarianism, of course!

Seriously--I don't see how you get anarchy from what Bytor advocates. He's saying we should abandon allegiance to party, not government. There is a difference.

I didn't seriously believe he was advocating anarchy, hence the confused look after it.

Isn't Libertarianism just yet another party allegiance though? What makes it immune to the political mess that the current major parties have fallen into?

[Guest]

I see this is a "flock" mentality. It is a product of a people who do not really know how the government is structured/run and even further, has not found their own set of principles. Therefore, they are easily swayed by joining a particular flock. The principles of the flock may change and mutate, yet their membership in it stays the same since they never truly based their allegiance to the flock on rock hard principles but only by what sounded good at the time.

This is the same thing that keeps people in gangs. If the leader of the gang decides to go bad, everybody just seems to follow because they want to keep their membership to the gang without much thought to principles.

Once a membership to the flock is gained, then you can take one issue, spin it, and make it sound good to the flock, principle aside.

So now the masses don't choose the political party that best represents their principles and how they feel the government should be run, instead, they pick their flock (depending on how cool they sounded at the time) then align their principles to match.

But, the "higher law" (using church terms now) should be to educate ourselves on government structure and history and then define our own set of principles. Afterwhich, we pick the political party that best represents those principles. Then we are not married to the political party - we are married to the set of principles. Sometimes you will not find the political party that aligns to ALL of your principles, but you can pretty much prioritize which you can live with and which you can't. Then if the politician switches out principles on you, you can immediately say, "HEY! Wait a minute!" and re-analyze your affiliation instead of spinning the issue to maintain the affiliation.

This also makes it harder for politicians to use favored weapons like wealth-envy, etc., to sway our allegiance.

Oh, but it's late and I'm tired and I'm just rambling on and on...

[Guest Believer_1829]

Unfortunately, in spite of the best of intentions and the great idea that it is to leave the (D)'s and ®'s, the two party system is here to stay with the two parties that are already there. I could never in good conscience vote for someone with socialist ideas and Liberal moral standards so I am stuck trying to change things through the existing party that closest represents my personal beliefs.

[HEthePrimate]

The broad generalizations in Bytor's original post are just that, broad generalizations. I think most Americans fall somewhere on a continuum of political belief, and that most members of either major party do not agree with everything their fellow party members say or do.

I don't understand why Americans are so attached to their two-party system. Why not have more parties?

HEP

[boyando]

bytor;

This time, I couldn't disagree with you more. We all have a little different idea of what part government should play in our lives. If you don't join with like minded people your voice is not heard. If you don't have party's, so that you can develop a platform of like minded people, then you have minds that may think a like but has no power to influence the direction of policy. A point in every direction is like no point at all.

The answer is two fold. Take back your party and keep involved. And don't let your ideas, concerns and desires, be filtered by the AP aka American Press. If you don't, those who do, will remain in control.

[bytor2112]

bytor;

This time, I couldn't disagree with you more. We all have a little different idea of what part government should play in our lives. If you don't join with like minded people your voice is not heard. If you don't have party's, so that you can develop a platform of like minded people, then you have minds that may think a like but has no power to influence the direction of policy. A point in every direction is like no point at all.

The answer is two fold. Take back your party and keep involved. And don't let your ideas, concerns and desires, be filtered by the AP aka American Press. If you don't, those who do, will remain in control.

Well....I am a registered Republican and I do believe the best way to effect change is from within, rather than starting a new party. While I believe the Republicans "best" represent my views.....they really are a far cry from what they have claimed to be. We (Republicans) criticize President Obama and the Democrats for out of control spending and over reaching government policies, yet, when the Republicans had the opportunity to create real change when they controlled the Congress and white house, they did the same thing.....granted on a much smaller scale, but really the same thing.

[prisonchaplain]

I see the greatest hope for the ultimate implimentation of my ideals from one of the two major parties. Since the two-party system does better than multi-party ones, I'll remain mostly loyal to mine, despite its current lack of strong leadership and strong ideals. I'll not compromise my beliefs, but I'll work with the broken vessel that is at least pointed in roughly the right direction.

Primate asked why the two-party system--because it demands of the individual parties an appeal to the people. It's one thing to hold philosophical and political beliefs in a vacuum, another to win the hearts and minds of a majority of the population. With two parties, the majority actually does rule, rather than a conglameration of small groups, often with extreme ones holding a small balance of power.

Edited August 7, 2009 by prisonchaplain

[Prodigal_Son]

I just wanna have a party.

Some good BBQ, good music, and good friends.

Who'll join MY party? (I need a headcount so my wife can start scrapping together the invitations.)

[Maxel]

The broad generalizations in Bytor's original post are just that, broad generalizations. I think most Americans fall somewhere on a continuum of political belief, and that most members of either major party do not agree with everything their fellow party members say or do.

I don't understand why Americans are so attached to their two-party system. Why not have more parties?

HEP

I agree with the more-than-two-party system. I'd like to see 3-4 main parties, personally. Too many parties and no one has a majority to do anything, too few and you're stuck with a lesser-of-two-evils scenario, like the one we're in now.

[Prodigal_Son]

Some would argue that myriad parties would prevent anything from ever getting done.

Sounds like a dream-come-true to me.

[Moksha]

Libertarianism, of course!

Seriously--I don't see how you get anarchy from what Bytor advocates. He's saying we should abandon allegiance to party, not government. There is a difference.

Actually a Plutocracy would most likely evolve after the anarchy of Libertarianism.

What about a Theocracy instead? A new Kingdom of Deseret!

:)

[boyando]

Well....I am a registered Republican and I do believe the best way to effect change is from within, rather than starting a new party. While I believe the Republicans "best" represent my views.....they really are a far cry from what they have claimed to be. We (Republicans) criticize President Obama and the Democrats for out of control spending and over reaching government policies, yet, when the Republicans had the opportunity to create real change when they controlled the Congress and white house, they did the same thing.....granted on a much smaller scale, but really the same thing.

Now there is something that we can agree on.

But I would go a little farther and say that the Republican party needs an over haul. I get a regular e-mail from the Utah Party and I wish I had saved the one about John Huntsman being a conservative. It could have been written by the DNC.

For me, it is not a matter of party loyalty. And I don't care if we lose every Republican who disagrees with President Obama, because he is a Democrat and not because of his policy's. Those kind of Republicans can be replaced and should be.

It is the ideas of what it means to be an American and the direction that this country really wants to go that concerns me. As it does almost everyone on this thread.

[Gatorman]

I do not vote for a party. I vote for the positions of the individual. I do not ascribe to the 'voting for the lessor evil' theory either. I am responsible for my vote and my vote only. I am not responsible for the outcome. I study the candidates to some details, I prayerfully consider, and then I vote. This process has led me to never vote for a Republican or Democrat for President since I have been old enough to vote. None of them passed the test and standards put forth by Heavenly Father and the leaders of the church. I firmly believe in the limited government of the Constitution and find very inspiring the writings of Ezra Taft Benson.

[Guest]

Mitt Romney once said in his speech, the problems in the country is caused by a culture shift. I agree. And I would love to have somebody in power who can shift the culture back to the American ideals of personal liberty and accountability.

[FunkyTown]

bytor;

This time, I couldn't disagree with you more. We all have a little different idea of what part government should play in our lives. If you don't join with like minded people your voice is not heard. If you don't have party's, so that you can develop a platform of like minded people, then you have minds that may think a like but has no power to influence the direction of policy. A point in every direction is like no point at all.

The answer is two fold. Take back your party and keep involved. And don't let your ideas, concerns and desires, be filtered by the AP aka American Press. If you don't, those who do, will remain in control.

The problem, Boyando, is the the US currently is made up of 3 Americas - Actually 2, with one being split along party lines.

The first America is what I would call the George Washington Americans. These Americans are loyal to the idea of America - Of a land of opportunity and righteousness, of freedom from tyranny. It comprises both the American Farmer from Idaho and the idealistic UCLA lawyer campaigning for equal rights for all men. It is the poet who says "Give us your tired, your poor, your wretched masses yearning to breathe free." and the zealot who says, "Give me liberty or give me death."

The second America is what I will call Nixonesque. It is an America of self-interest. It is the aspect of the government that allowed LSD testing on US citizens and the citizens of her allies. It is the America that believes any action can be taken, no matter how base and terrible, so long as America prospers - As if America were separate from the people and ideals that made it great.

Sadly, the second America is winning. It is convincing those politicians who have ideals that they must sell out to special interests to make a difference, then entangle them in those deals to prevent them from making any changes that they joined politics for in the first place. The second America has convinced the Idaho farmer that the UCLA lawyer is a traitor and the UCLA lawyer is convinced the Idaho Farmer is a hate-filled bigot. The second America has convinced Washington's America that they should split alongside party lines.

In Washington's America, one man can say "I believe that every man, woman and child, rich and poor deserve equal treatment. That's why both rich and poor should have access to health care."

and another man can say "I believe that every man, woman and child, rich and poor deserve equal treatment. That's why the government cannot favor one system of health care over another, because it is a tyranny that will lead to monopolies."

In Washington's America, the two can have a dialogue and both, with righteous fervor, can listen with America's best interests at heart to come to a compromise and conclusion that will fit America. This is why the US has the Living Constitution - A document designed to grow to meet the changes of the world.

In the Nixonesque America, there is no compromise. The first man makes his claim and the second man ignores it. The first claims the second has no compassion for the poor, the second claims the first is embracing tyranny and has no wisdom for the future.

In Nixon's America, there is no prospering in civil rights or room for conviction. It only serves one master, who doesn't care about anyone. And the real America suffers.

Nixon's America has bred political paralysis, where no man may stray or give ground on anything. It is the heart and soul of what is destroying America.

[boyando]

The problem, Boyando, is the the US currently is made up of 3 Americas - Actually 2, with one being split along party lines.

The first America is what I would call the George Washington Americans. These Americans are loyal to the idea of America - Of a land of opportunity and righteousness, of freedom from tyranny. It comprises both the American Farmer from Idaho and the idealistic UCLA lawyer campaigning for equal rights for all men. It is the poet who says "Give us your tired, your poor, your wretched masses yearning to breathe free." and the zealot who says, "Give me liberty or give me death."

The second America is what I will call Nixonesque. It is an America of self-interest. It is the aspect of the government that allowed LSD testing on US citizens and the citizens of her allies. It is the America that believes any action can be taken, no matter how base and terrible, so long as America prospers - As if America were separate from the people and ideals that made it great.

Sadly, the second America is winning. It is convincing those politicians who have ideals that they must sell out to special interests to make a difference, then entangle them in those deals to prevent them from making any changes that they joined politics for in the first place. The second America has convinced the Idaho farmer that the UCLA lawyer is a traitor and the UCLA lawyer is convinced the Idaho Farmer is a hate-filled bigot. The second America has convinced Washington's America that they should split alongside party lines.

In Washington's America, one man can say "I believe that every man, woman and child, rich and poor deserve equal treatment. That's why both rich and poor should have access to health care."

and another man can say "I believe that every man, woman and child, rich and poor deserve equal treatment. That's why the government cannot favor one system of health care over another, because it is a tyranny that will lead to monopolies."

In Washington's America, the two can have a dialogue and both, with righteous fervor, can listen with America's best interests at heart to come to a compromise and conclusion that will fit America. This is why the US has the Living Constitution - A document designed to grow to meet the changes of the world.

In the Nixonesque America, there is no compromise. The first man makes his claim and the second man ignores it. The first claims the second has no compassion for the poor, the second claims the first is embracing tyranny and has no wisdom for the future.

In Nixon's America, there is no prospering in civil rights or room for conviction. It only serves one master, who doesn't care about anyone. And the real America suffers.

Nixon's America has bred political paralysis, where no man may stray or give ground on anything. It is the heart and soul of what is destroying America.

Although, I thank you for your opinion, I can find little that you have written to agree with you on.

Washington did want equal opportunity for every man woman or child, but he didn't advocate in anyway, that I can see, equal results.

There were rich and there were poor in Washington's day. Washington himself would be counted among the rich. Same with Jefferson and many other of the founding father's. In there day, it would have been a crime for the government to tax the rich and give too the poor. If they thought that it was a good idea to do so, they would have made it law.

Instead, they felt some of the things that I feel. I am not a poorer man if my neighbor makes more money than I do. I am not better off if my boss has half his money taken away from him. I should decide how much and were I give charitable contributions. My self interest does not effect your self interest or that of the country. My hard work makes me stronger.

Our founders wanted it to be hard to change the Constitution, but changeable. But not make it a living document were the meaning of any right can be changed by a judge, lawyer or politician.

I can not abide the idea that health care should be denied any one. But neither do I see any one being denied health care. I have experienced the high cost of health care for most of my adult life. But if I decided to go steal from my neighbor to pay for my medical expenses, I would deserve to go to jail. If the government takes from my neighbor for my medical expenses, that is no more moral.

And I think that you are confused as too who is silencing debate. Just today I heard President Obama say that he wants those who caused the health care problem to shut up. I guess if I think that it was people like him who caused the problem, I should ask him to shut up. but I don't expect him to be quite.

[Maxel]

And I think that you are confused as too who is silencing debate. Just today I heard President Obama say that he wants those who caused the health care problem to shut up. I guess if I think that it was people like him who caused the problem, I should ask him to shut up. but I don't expect him to be quite.

Where did you hear the President say that? I'd like to see that video, if it's on the 'net.

[Just_A_Guy]

Where did you hear the President say that? I'd like to see that video, if it's on the 'net.

I suspect Boyando is referring to this (via Drudge).