View Full Version : Sometimes the most simple questions are the hardest to answer...
a completely inoffensive name
10-02-2010, 02:19
Literally just 10 minutes ago as I was walking with one of my roommates back from the dining hall to our apartment, she (not knowledgeable about politics at all) asked me, "So ACIN you know all about this stuff (I am the most knowledgable about politics in my apartment), what exactly is the difference between the two parties (she asked for confirmation that there was indeed two major parties after that but that was easy to answer.)?"
My brain literally short circuited in about 5 seconds. There was just so much going on in that simple question that together completely flustered me. Nevertheless after a minute of silent contemplation I attempted to go about it in the most neutral, non partisan way possible but even still:
1. How do I go about in a simple conversation break it down into social and economic subsections without making things too complicated?
2. How do I make accurate descriptions without going into detail to the point where I lose her and without using words like "conservative" and "liberal" which really have lost much of their meaning and don't really match up well with what the actual spectrum of ideas is.
3. How do I answer the follow up questions of why do they such and such without being partisan?
I ended up being vary vague and ultimately used the terrible descriptions of "liberal", "conservative", "left-wing" and "right-wing" although for each use of one of those words I quickly tried to add a footnote about it's usage (I said, in the broad spectrum Democrats are not "left-wing" in that no one associates themselves with Communism or Socialism except for one Senator I believe, Democrats are more accurately "just more left" then Republicans). I made a quick comparison of the American spectrum of politics with the European one to make sure that the crappy descriptive words I used were diminished in their deceptive nature.
Even still, I feel that I failed simply in that trying to answer the big question accurately but briefly, I ended up with a hollow answer.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-02-2010, 02:47
Let's say your car broke down by the side of the road and you needed help. The republicans would drive by and laugh on their way to the country club. The democrats would stop to help, but end up setting your car on fire.
really it's not a simple question...
Crazed Rabbit
10-02-2010, 04:33
The main difference is what special interest groups the party panders to, and which other ones they demonize.
CR
a completely inoffensive name
10-02-2010, 04:37
Not if they all vote for all the special interest group bills when it comes down to it. Democrats pander to the unions, but when a bill allowing more outsourcing (AKA NAFTA) comes up, it gets pushed through.
Megas Methuselah
10-02-2010, 06:46
This is why the New Democratic Party can pwn you all. Socialism will live forever.
Tellos Athenaios
10-02-2010, 08:26
Simple question actually: there isn't much difference really. Yes Republicans “generally” profess to desire more individual responsibility and less state interference than Democrats do, but “generally” don't live up to that either. Democrats “generally” want to fix things they believe broken, but “generally” end up not achieving too much of that either.
The reason why those parties are not clones of each other has nothing to do with a party line or party-wide held beliefs (indeed there practically would be none). Instead it has everything to do with the politicians running the show (and to some extent their background: the state they're from). The cynic might say it's not so much the difference between the parties that is relevant but more who's in bed with what lobby group and how much money they get for it. :shrug:
Rhyfelwyr
10-02-2010, 11:03
You could have divided it into theory and reality. In theory they have ideological differences, in reality there's nowt between them.
gaelic cowboy
10-02-2010, 14:40
You could have divided it into theory and reality. In theory they have ideological differences, in reality there's nowt between them.
Aye more brass than brains if ye ask me
Sasaki Kojiro
10-02-2010, 16:03
The reason for there not being huge differences across the board between the parties is that we don't let extremists run our parties. This is a good thing.
There are a lot more differences than you guys are suggesting though.
The reason for there not being huge differences across the board between the parties is that we don't let extremists run our parties.
LOL, the irony.
Rhyfelwyr
10-02-2010, 20:23
Indeed, what people think of as "extreme" is relative, most US politicians are Thatcherite fanatics by the standards this side of the Atlantic.
a completely inoffensive name
10-03-2010, 01:07
I never got the logic behind saying there is no difference between them. Would the Republicans ever have even attempted health care reform? Would they have ever mentioned a single payer system? Would the Republicans ever have proposed financial reform? To say there is no difference seem disingenuous. We all know we would be different if Gore was president then Bush, and if Kerry was president then Bush and if McCain was president then Obama, so don't say the two parties are the same.
CountArach
10-03-2010, 05:01
You didn't troll and claim there were ten different parties? I expected better from you.
a completely inoffensive name
10-03-2010, 07:47
I have to live with her. I could have trolled the **** out of her but then I would have had to live with a nasty, rude ***** for...6 more months. yeah, not going to trade short term lulz for long term pain.
GeneralHankerchief
10-03-2010, 07:58
Make it an issue of interference vs. non-interference.
Fiscally, Republicans believe that the government should stay out of the economy for the most part and let people work things out for themselves. Democrats believe that the government can and should be used to help regulate things and give the economy a kick-start if the need arises.
Socially, the Republicans are more inclined to have the government be used to enforce people to act a certain way for the good of the rest of society (and that's a horrible phrasing but it's 3am here and I can't think of anything better), while Democrats are more inclined to go "eh, do whatever you want, it's not other people's problem."
So if even that needs summing up, Republicans want the government to interfere more on social issues while Democrats want the government to interfere with the economy.
Rhyfelwyr
10-03-2010, 13:09
Fiscally, Republicans believe that the government should stay out of the economy for the most part and let people work things out for themselves
This more than any other example highlights the gap between theory and reality.
This more than any other example highlights the gap between theory and reality.
Especially when Republicans are in favour of interference to the benefit of their donators and themselves and against the consumers and employees.
Mommy and daddy have different expectations
Rhyfelwyr
10-03-2010, 16:04
Especially when Republicans are in favour of interference to the benefit of their donators and themselves and against the consumers and employees.
Redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich. It's like socialism in reverse.
Redistribution of wealth from the poor to the rich. It's like socialism in reverse.
Exactly, its the way things have always been done in the past. People exploiting those below them to get richer.
ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88
10-03-2010, 18:19
Let's say your car broke down by the side of the road and you needed help. The republicans would drive by and laugh on their way to the country club. The democrats would stop to help, but end up setting your car on fire.
really it's not a simple question...
And us Libertarians would fix it without breaking it :yes:.
That's Epic Sasaki, going to add that into my signature. :laugh4:
It's a simple question with a complex question.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.