...

This from the Socastee website:
The Differences Between Republicans And Democrats (http://www.socastee.com/politics/rep_dem_diff.html)

The difference between an a$$ and an elephant

Traditionally it was a conservative philosophy vs. the liberal philosophy. But the Republican party of forty years ago would not recognize their party today, and the same goes for the Democrats. Tex and I were discussing earlier, though how the times seemed to have blurred the lines. However some things seem to be a given. To name a few: both parties are mostly full of hot air and failed promises. You can count on a Democratic govt to spend crazy for any cause that meets their fancy. Yet usually to the Democrats credit the employment rate and jobs created usually fair well. Republicans are still stingy when it comes to a fair minimum wage (like pulling teeth) and are usually good for high deficits by the time they leave office along with debt.

Well after your first two responses I found this interesting article that I'll share:



"Democrats and Republicans Both Adept at Ignoring Facts, Study Finds
By LiveScience Staff


And they get quite a rush from ignoring information that's contrary to their point of view.

Researchers asked staunch party members from both sides to evaluate information that threatened their preferred candidate prior to the 2004 Presidential election. The subjects' brains were monitored while they pondered.

The results were announced today.

"We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning," said Drew Westen, director of clinical psychology at Emory University. "What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up, including circuits hypothesized to be involved in regulating emotion, and circuits known to be involved in resolving conflicts."

Bias on both sides

The test subjects on both sides of the political aisle reached totally biased conclusions by ignoring information that could not rationally be discounted, Westen and his colleagues say.

Then, with their minds made up, brain activity ceased in the areas that deal with negative emotions such as disgust. But activity spiked in the circuits involved in reward, a response similar to what addicts experience when they get a fix, Westen explained.

The study points to a total lack of reason in political decision-making.

"None of the circuits involved in conscious reasoning were particularly engaged," Westen said. "Essentially, it appears as if partisans twirl the cognitive kaleidoscope until they get the conclusions they want, and then they get massively reinforced for it, with the elimination of negative emotional states and activation of positive ones."

Notably absent were any increases in activation of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain most associated with reasoning.

The tests involved pairs of statements by the candidates, President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry, that clearly contradicted each other. The test subjects were asked to consider and rate the discrepancy. Then they were presented with another statement that might explain away the contradiction. The scenario was repeated several times for each candidate.

The brain imaging revealed a consistent pattern. Both Republicans and Democrats consistently denied obvious contradictions for their own candidate but detected contradictions in the opposing candidate.

"The result is that partisan beliefs are calcified, and the person can learn very little from new data," Westen said.

Vote for Tom Hanks

Other relatively neutral candidates were introduced into the mix, such as the actor Tom Hanks. Importantly, both the Democrats and Republicans reacted to the contradictions of these characters in the same manner.

The findings could prove useful beyond the campaign trail.

"Everyone from executives and judges to scientists and politicians may reason to emotionally biased judgments when they have a vested interest in how to interpret 'the facts,'" Westen said.

The researchers will present the findings Saturday at the Annual Conference of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology."



__________________________________________________ ____________________________________




Bobby

Oh please, get a sense of humor.

That was a serious response. The resource used is not saying it is the gospel of politics, but what is?
Here is an article by Paul Hein:

Momentous Trifles
By Paul Hein

I haven't conducted a survey, but I think that if I were to ask people if they believed there was some sort of significant difference between Republicans and Democrats, many, if not most of them, would answer "Yes."

In a sense, they're right. The ultimate political difference is: We're out; they're in. Or vice versa. Getting into office and staying there is the ultimate political question before which all others fade into insignificance.

But once elected, what are the differences? Well, there are the stereotypes: the Republicans favor big business; the Democrats, labor. The Republicans frown on abortion; the Democrats think it utterly acceptable. The Democrats never hesitate to raise the minimum wage; the Republicans express misgivings.

But note: the Republicans may not want to raise the minimum wage as fast or as high as the Democrats, but they do raise it. No Republican, to my knowledge (Ron Paul being an exception) ever suggests doing away with it altogether. Similarly, in other areas of "disagreement," the question is never whether to do away with a certain big-government program or not, but only how much to reduce the increase in its budget, or some other minor modification.

This quibbling is important; it sustains the illusion of a difference between the parties, which, in turn, encourages voting. And voting is the measure by which the people's belief in government, and its inevitability and necessity, is gauged.

But the real proof of the essential identity of the two parties is shown in the issues that most seriously challenge the powers currently in office.

The current flap involves the government firing of eight federal prosecutors. This is a matter of such substantial insignificance that it can safely be raised by the Democrats against the Republicans without risking the possibility of anything of substance coming to light.

Federal prosecutors serve at the pleasure of the administration. To my knowledge, no one has alleged that the firing of the prosecutors was unlawful. Rather, it is charged that their firings were politically motivated: some of them were investigating possible improprieties by Republicans. Gosh – politics in government! Could it be? When the attorneys were hired originally, do you suppose it could have been because the administration considered their political philosophy congruent with its own? Why would a "conservative" president take on more than a few token "liberal" federal prosecutors? And why would he retain those who appeared hostile to his policies? Those who express surprise or outrage that the administration would fire prosecutors for political reasons are at least as disingenuous as the president himself. Fired for political reasons? Of course! Everybody knows it, and were it not an election year, with political gain to be reaped by the show of outraged indignation, it would hardly merit a mention in the evening news.

Or consider the other administration-threatening affair: Watergate. A trivial bungled burglary, for no good reason, since it appeared that Nixon would carry the day anyway. Plus, tape recordings of President Nixon – admittedly a shrewd man – conspiring with his colleagues about the break-in! I've never understood why a person as smart as Nixon would make recordings of himself planning a crime – albeit a rather minor one. Nonetheless, this silly affair was blown into such importance that it drove Nixon out of the White House.

The Republicans had their chance with Clinton's sexual pecadillos, but failed to oust the President. They succeeded in demonstrating his appalling moral character, but that was pretty well known before.

Now if you really wanted to hound a president from office, you could find serious and weighty things to support your attack. President Bush, for example, has committed so many crimes during his term in office (warrantless spying, torture of prisoners, for examples) that, by any rational standard, he could be impeached and convicted several times over. But who could accuse him? Whose hands are clean enough to cast the first stone?

When he wasn't making a record of himself plotting a robbery, Nixon gave us such monstrosities as the EPA, and affirmative action. These unconstitutional acts provided plenty of grounds for impeachment, but, again, who would bring the charge? His political enemies, who also supported such programs?

Political divisions are real, all right, but as mentioned above, they do not involve any principles save: get power and keep it, and involve your cronies in the resulting plunder and loot. When we see a serious threat to presidential power, as, we're told, is now happening re the firing of the prosecutors, we can be sure that the matter is trivial.

Any challenge to government action based upon fundamental principles is not going to happen, because it would reveal the antagonists as essentially the same. It's like voting for the candidate who is the lesser of two evils. If you wait for a candidate who isn't evil at all, it'll be a long wait! And it'll be an even longer wait before one party challenges the policies of the other on anything but trivial grounds. Both parties live in glass houses.

March 31, 2007

Dr. Hein [send him mail] is a retired ophthalmologist in St. Louis, and the author of All Work & No Pay.

Here are some other articles:
Unclaimed Territory - by Glenn Greenwald: Any differences between Democrats in 2003 and today? (http://glenngreenwald.blogspot.com/2006/05/any-differences-between-democrats-in.html)
AskMe: Democrats vs. Republicans: 2004 update (http://www.ontheissues.org/askme/Dem_rep2004.htm)
Difference Between Republicans and Democrats (http://markshannon.com/republicandemocrat.htm) - that is a side by side comparison
Publius' Forum: Difference Between Republicans and Democrats- Which do YOU believe? (http://publiusforum.blogspot.com/2006/09/difference-between-republicans-and.html) - looks the same comparison as the Mark Shannon site

This quibbling is important; it sustains the illusion of a difference between the parties, which, in turn, encourages voting. And voting is the measure by which the people's belief in government, and its inevitability and necessity, is gauged.

I agree. In fact, I'll go as far as to say that both parties enjoy the monopoly every election and that's they way they prefer to keep it.



Bobby

What are the essential differences between the Republican and Democratic parties?Hello DC:

Not much! They're both extremely liberal!

One would take your money and use it to build government bureaucracy's that enforce their views about YOUR morals.

The other would take your money and use it to build government bureaucracy's that enforce their views about the COUNTRY'S morals.

These are distinctions WITHOUT differences. I don't think the government ought to be in the morals business. Actually, it never was until some liberal thought it should. Then all hell broke loose.

excon

DC,

I need a clarification of your question. Are you asking what the difference between the POLITICAL STANCES of the parties are? Or are you asking about the differences between the way the parties operate. If you are asking the latter, I would say that there is really very little difference between them. In the case of the former, I believe that there is a stark contrast between the two parties. Please let me know.

Excon, watch your mouth!! No profanity on the board!!

Democrats use the government to tax and spend to help their friends.

Republicans use the government to borrow and spend to help their friends.

Meanwhile the rest of us are bustin' our humps to pay for it all.

Ok, shame on me for framing a question in such an ambiguous fashion.

Essentially, and initially, I believe the political and economic philosophy the Republican and Democratic parties varied some but were much alike. In fact, I don't see how a two party system can operate unless there are fundamental and basic agreements.

The two parties have each given Americans both good and bad governance, scandals, Crooks, and great statesmen.

I believe that if we look at the essential direction each party would take us, socially and economically, and not to what the various Political candidates say in their election speeches, and especially not to the muckraking and politicizing that goes on, we will all be better equipped to make a decision as to the best candidate. I say this because I believe that a candidate must be representative of their respective Party in order to receive their nomination.

Political figures come and go, but the two Parties remain on year after year.

One example of philosophical essentials that changed was the New Deal. There are others, but I don't believe many. I do have one other in mind but would prefer someone else to discover it.

You are correct that the New Deal ushered in a new paradigm in the population's reliance on the nanny state. It led to a period of Congressional dominance by the Democrats until 1994 . Before that the Republican party pretty much dominated from the Civil War reconstruction period until the Great Depression .

For electoral reasons perhaps there is not a huge difference since each try to seduce the middle of American culture. It is at the base of each party where the distinctions become more evident .

I tend to look at things through the historical lense. The two current parties have dominated American politics since the civil war . But all that has really changed is party names throughout American history .The basic issues have remained as I briefly laid out in the founders debate about the role of the central government .

EDIT

I will add my comment on the other thread for clarification :



I think that each party is quite in agreement about the fundamental ideas set forth in the constitution and federalist papers. But it seems one big riff began with the New Deal.

DC

This will serve as a part of a response to your follow-up posting about the political parties

Yes, the New Deal was a tipping point in the last century ,but I think the current and historically the differences in American political parties traces back to the debates of and about federalism the founders had . To correct the biggest misconception in American history ; the founders were not this monolithic group of like minded men . There was the Federalist Papers published by Madison, Hamilton, and Jay ,and there was also the lesser quoted anti-Federalist essays written by founders like Patrick Henry ,George Clinton ,and a few others like Richard Henry Lee . The Constitution was very much a compromise between the competing views of what the government should look like and even then ratification was not a sure thing . The bicameral nature of the Congress as an example was a direct result of the behind doors negotiations that went on at the Constitutional Convention. A government without political parties did not last past the 1st George Washington Administration.

Conflicts between the founders were quite nasty whether they were hitting below the belt using pseudonyms in the( then equivalent of the internet) press ;or in some cases where it came to blows and duels. The political debate today is civil by comparison.
__________________

You are correct that the New Deal ushered in a new paradigm in the population's reliance on the nanny state. It led to a period of Congressional dominance by the Democrats until 1994 . Before that the Republican party pretty much dominated from the Civil War reconstruction period until the Great Depression .

For electoral reasons perhaps there is not a huge difference since each try to seduce the middle of American culture. It is at the base of each party where the distinctions become more evident .

I tend to look at things through the historical lense. The two current parties have dominated American politics since the civil war . But all that has really changed is party names throughout American history .The basic issues have remained as I briefly laid out in the founders debate about the role of the central government .
In all fairness, I think we should define your preference to a muckraking term, “nanny state” for what it is… minimum-wage and maximum-hour legislation, Federal subsidies to agriculture, soil conservation, a housing program, the elimination of tax-exempt securities, the regulation of stock markets, securities issues, and public utilities; which if investigated was acceptable to the Republican Party when they were written into law.

P.S. “Before that the Republican party pretty much dominated from the Civil War reconstruction period until the Great Depression.”

That does not speak well of the Republican Policies… Great Depression.

I was not around during the debates of the New Deal. I imagine however it was less than an acceptable proposition to the Republicans. Knowing history as I do I am sure issues of cost ;and the expanded role of the Federal Gvt. (or as I called it nanny state) were all raised . SCOTUS ;in a rare display of getting it right ruled many of the alphabet agencies Roosevelt concocted as unconstitutional .

I was not around during the debates of the New Deal.
They are available on the web; rather than guess, why not make certain.

"But all that has really changed is party names throughout American history."

:confused:

P.S. “I imagine” is what fiction writers do.

I was not around during the debates of the New Deal. I imagine however it was less than an acceptable proposition to the Republicans. Knowing history as I do I am sure issues of cost ;and the expanded role of the Federal Gvt. (or as I called it nanny state) were all raised . SCOTUS ;in a rare display of getting it right ruled many of the alphabet agencies Roosevelt concocted as unconstitutional .
In fact, I found a link to a debate which included Glenn Frank, who at this time was chairman of the Republican Program Committee and had just sponsored the composition and publication of an extensive Republican Campaign Handbook.

http://www.roberthjackson.org/documents/041540/

The problem the way I read it was that the Republicans were so demoralized after the 1932 election that they did not give the initial proposals of the New Deal much of a fight. Opposition later galvanized by both Republicans and Democrats like Al Smith who were less than enamoured with the expanded role of the government .

The problem the way I read it was that the Republicans were so demoralized after the 1932 election that they did not give the initial proposals of the New Deal much of a fight. Opposition later galvanized by both Republicans and Democrats like Al Smith who were less than enamoured with the expanded role of the government .
Inductive conclusions very often lead to wrong conclusions, especially when they are based on a couple of psychological premises. They are just not reliable.

That was a serious response. The resource used is not saying it is the gospel of politics, but what is?
Here is an article by Paul Hein:

Momentous Trifles
by Paul Hein

I haven’t conducted a survey, but I think .
The article in your first post was an obvious bias account, completely with-out intellectual content, and devoid of any significant value.

In the current post you quote Paul Hein and he starts with the startling announcement that, “I haven’t conducted a survey, but I think…”

But I am not interested in that account, but rather what you believe and why.

Hello DC:

Not much! They're both extremely liberal!

One would take your money and use it to build government bureaucracy's that enforce their views about YOUR morals.

The other would take your money and use it to build government bureaucracy's that enforce their views about the COUNTRY'S morals.

These are distinctions WITHOUT differences. I don't think the government ought to be in the morals business. Actually, it never was until some liberal thought it should. Then all hell broke loose.

excon
Morals aside, what do you think about economics; for instance Marxists economics was first practiced, then liberals and conservatives drifted away from them; however, in the past 3o years both a Republican and a Democrat have relied on those Marxist economic principles.

I honestly do not believe there is that much difference between the parties. When it comes to graft, acceptance of lobbyist dollars, siphoning federal funds for pet projects, cover ups on murders and other crimes - there is NO difference. But I do feel the Republican party is fundamentally more conservative than the Democrats, although you can always find a conservative Democrat out there.

DC,

I need a clarification of your question. Are you asking what the difference between the POLITICAL STANCES of the parties are? Or are you asking about the differences between the way the parties operate. If you are asking the latter, I would say that there is really very little difference between them. In the case of the former, I believe that there is a stark contrast between the two parties. Please let me know.

Elliot

I suppose POLITICAL STANCES, works for me; more specifically political philosophy.

Overall -
Republicans support keeping things the way they are (hence, conservative). This goes toward issues such as gay marriage and civil rights. They also support big business and rewards for the productive individual (bigger tax breaks for the wealthy).
Democrats support change, generally toward equality (gay marriage, civil rights) and community based programs. The farthest left you can go is Marxism.

Overall -
Republicans support keeping things the way they are (hence, conservative). This goes toward issues such as gay marriage and civil rights. They also support big business and rewards for the productive individual (bigger tax breaks for the wealthy).
Democrats support change, generally toward equality (gay marriage, civil rights) and community based programs. The farthest left you can go is Marxism.
Hi

I think your answer is a fair description of what most people commonly believe.

However it raises two questions for me:

If the Republican Party supports big business, and I think they do, why is there a capital gains tax? I think that I can answer that in part: because big business uses the tax collector as a hedge against new competition.

On the Democratic side, I would argue that the left is mistakenly called Marxist, if fact, much of the Right is actually much closer to Marx’s political philosophy.

The following is a concept Marx would be in agreement with.

Excess taxation can result in hedging economic progress through its effect on capital accumulation. It creates a general movement toward stagnation and the preservation of business practices which could not last under the competitive conditions of the unhampered market economy...

If the Republican Party supports big business, and I think they do, why is there a capital gains tax? I think that I can answer that in part: because big business uses the tax collector as a hedge against new competition
The capital gains tax is to encourage the financing of new business investment through debt rather than equity. That is because the capital gains tax is a form of double taxation of the same income (it is taxed as corporate income when earned and later as capital gains income when the taxpayers sell their equity holdings). In contrast, income resulting from debt-financed investments is taxed only once, because interest expenses are tax deductible.
That has created a powerful and unintended incentive to finance corporate expansion and reorganization through leveraging rather than equity. Thus supporting big business.

The capital gains tax is to encourage the financing of new business investment through debt rather than equity. That is because the capital gains tax is a form of double taxation of the same income (it is taxed as corporate income when earned and later as capital gains income when the taxpayers sell their equity holdings). In contrast, income resulting from debt-financed investments is taxed only once, because interest expenses are tax deductible.
That has created a powerful and unintended incentive to finance corporate expansion and reorganization through leveraging rather than equity. Thus supporting big business.
Hi

Nice overview.

Not only that, it is a deterrent to capital growth. America should abolish the tax entirely, along with interest deduction.

The capital gains tax appears to me to be connected to demand-side economics.

But what is your thought on that?

America should abolish the tax entirely, along with interest deduction.


Agree ;although I would phase out the interest deduction on homes instead .

Agree ;although I would phase out the interest deduction on homes instead .
Eliminate The Home Mortgage Interest Deduction?
That’s exactly what one economist argues:
“Why do we subsidize mortgage interest? More than Social Security–the benefits of which are taxed–it’s the most sacred cow in the Federal Budget. But it’s a truism that a subsidy yields higher prices. Home sellers can charge more because buyers are effectively subsidized by their ability to deduct mortgage interest. The purpose of the deduction is to encourage home ownership even though the deduction extends to people who hardly need government largesse. Canada has no mortgage interest deduction and yet its rates of home ownership are comparable to those in the United States. In other words, if we phased out the deduction, it probably wouldn’t reduce the rate of home ownership.”

There should be a debate about whether we really need it.

Yes I agree I'm in favor of the phased elimination of it .Since so many have a good chunk of their nest egg riding on their house it would be unfair to change the rules on them abruptly.

This was essentially the same argument I made during the attempt at reforming SS . I am in favor of the privatization but provisions need to be made for those who have played by the old rules for years.

I have never considered my home an investment and at this point I could absorb the loss of the deduction ;but many new homeowners purchased their homes with the deduction as part of the equation .

Also ;I would like to see that as part of an overall tax code revision. People would be less opposed to losing the MID if there were going to be savings elsewhere . I'm open to flat income tax and other alternatives... especially VAT to replace income taxes .

Federalist #21:


There is no method of steering clear of this inconvenience, but by authorizing the national government to raise its own revenues in its own way. Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. If inequalities should arise in some States from duties on particular objects, these will, in all probability, be counterbalanced by proportional inequalities in other States, from the duties on other objects. In the course of time and things, an equilibrium, as far as it is attainable in so complicated a subject, will be established everywhere. Or, if inequalities should still exist, they would neither be so great in their degree, so uniform in their operation, nor so odious in their appearance, as those which would necessarily spring from quotas, upon any scale that can possibly be devised.

It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption, that they contain in their own nature a security against excess. They prescribe their own limit; which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed, that is, an extension of the revenue. When applied to this object, the saying is as just as it is witty, that, "in political arithmetic, two and two do not always make four." If duties are too high, they lessen the consumption; the collection is eluded; and the product to the treasury is not so great as when they are confined within proper and moderate bounds. This forms a complete barrier against any material oppression of the citizens by taxes of this class, and is itself a natural limitation of the power of imposing them.