Democrats And Republicans Are The Same

I would fall somewhere in the middle on this one. Under previous Republican Administrations, such as both of the Bush administrations and, in large part, even the Reagan Administration, there wasn't much of a difference between the two political parties. If you look at what they actually do, as opposed to what they say, the majority of those who might be considered Republican leaders aren't significantly different than what the traditional Democrat Party agenda has been. For example, in a time when Republicans could garner votes by running on a pro-life agenda, most of them did. Once elected, however, not only did they not make any progress on this issue, but most of them never tried. Their pro-life principles were shelved until the next election year. Today, except in specific parts of the country, Republicans are afraid to even broach the subject.

During the Trump Administration, two things have introduced sharp divisions between the two parties: Trump himself and the fact that the Democrats have moved about as far to the left as they can get without bringing out guillotines and gas chambers.

Let's examine the list posted by Yvonne, according to my impressions:

• Riots and Violence / Law and Order: Yes, the Democrats are encouraging riots and violence because they believe that low-information voters will equate national unrest with the Trump Administration and vote for a change in November. On the other hand, the traditional Republican law and order stand has too often been at the expense of common sense and human decency and has been based on the idea that crime can only be combated through further militarization of our police departments, harsh mandatory sentencing laws, and capital punishment.
• Illegal Immigration / Legal Immigration: Under the Trump Administration, yes this has been a defining point. However, past Republican presidents, and particularly George W. Bush, have been as much in favor of uncontrolled immigration as any Democrat, and many in the Republican leadership are beholden to big business, who view illegal immigration as cheap labor. So what we see from Republicans on this point is usually a lot of rhetoric, but little else.
• Higher Taxes / Tax Breaks: I have not followed this issue at the national level as closely as I have some of the others but Paul LePage, our last Republican governor in Maine, is widely heralded by Republicans because he lowered the income tax, but he did so by introducing dozens of taxes on things that were never taxed before, and now the income tax is back to where it was before, or higher, plus we have all of the new taxes that can also be raised. At the national level, yes; most Republican presidents like to sign at least one tax cut, with a lot of fanfare, but when I was working more, and paying taxes, I never noticed much of a difference, if any. I did, however, notice President Clinton's retroactive tax increase because I couldn't pay it and it cost me more than a thousand dollars just on fees.
• Weak Military / Strong Military: Yes, I'd say that one is true. My daughter, as I have mentioned in this forum before, was a founder of the organization that brought about an end to Don't Ask, Don't Tell in the military. She was liberal on most social issues but she voted Republican at the presidential level because she always got raises from Republican presidents. As I see it, most Democrats don't really like this country very much anyhow, and probably wouldn't mind if we had to depend on the United Nations for our defense.
• Over-Regulation / Small Business: Under both major political parties, those with the most political pull get the rewards and I haven't noticed any significant difference between the two parties, except for the rhetoric in an election year.
• Let Anyone Vote / Voter ID: Yes, there are sharp differences there. The Democrats want to maintain as many avenues for cheating as possible.
• Welfare State / Working Class: I don't think it's out of compassion, but the Democrats are heavily invested in maintaining as large of a dependent population as possible because they will vote Democrat in order to keep the checks coming. One large negative point for the Republicans on this issue is that they are more likely to support welfare for large corporations while denying it to individuals. On COVID stimulus bills, several Republicans in the legislature wanted to bail out the banks, the schools, and the businesses but were opposed to the stimulus checks for individuals. Trump had to tell them that he wouldn't sign a stimulus bill that left out individuals.
• Poverty / Prosperity: Once elected or appointed to positions of power, members of both parties will take whatever they can get, so their chief interest is in their own financial position. Obviously, this has not been the case with President Trump. I think this one is connected with the one above. In their interest in maintaining a large dependent class, the Democrats can't allow for widespread prosperity. Also, they want to maintain control over who prospers and who does not, which I don't see so much from the Republicans.
• Big Government / Small Government: This may be one of those things that presidents learn that they have no control over once they assume office because I see no significant difference between Republican administrations and Democrat administrations, or between majority Republican or Democrat legislatures - Government always gets bigger. President Reagan is widely acclaimed for his support of a small government, yet the federal government grew much larger under his administration.
• Suppression / Free Speech: Republicans have been guilty of this as well, and I don't think either party is much in favor of free speech. However, in recent years it does seem that Democrats want to criminalize anything they disagree with. Given the power, I truly believe they would be shoving people into ovens who dared to say anything they disagreed with.
• Liberalism / Conservatism: President Trump did not come into office as a conservative but, faced with the extreme leftist views of the Democrats, I think he has become more conservative. Overall, though, I would characterize the Republican Party as Neoconservative and the Democrat Party as Socialist.
• Communism / Constitution: I believe that both political parties view the Constitution as an impediment while they are in power. In recent years, the Democrats haven't even pretended to support the concept of government under constitutional grounds, however. Given the power, they would scrap it and adopt something closer to the Chinese model.
• Socialism / Capitalism: I can almost agree with this one, except that the Republican idea of capitalism seems to be corporatism, which is pretty much what the Democrats would do, only the Democrats would want to control the corporations, who would then govern outside of any rule of law.
• Defiance / Patriotism: When in power, Democrats expect everyone to fall into line, and they would consider unthinking obedience to be patriotic. Republicans use American patriotism against the patriots, expecting blind loyalty and support for more and more government intrusion. Overall, I think patriotism is a tool that both political parties use against American citizens. I'm not a big fan of it.

 

I am afraid that we're beyond the time when working together would be in our best interests. "Working together" has become defined as the Democrats getting most of what they want, if not all, while Republicans don't lose quite as much ground as they feared.

 

This is probably more true than you've learned, as this was a quick, off-the-cuff, commentary in which I tried to stick to the points brought up in the comparison list. I am opposed to both abortion and capital punishment, although I don't believe that all murders should be treated the same. Mandatory sentencing laws are intended to bind the hands of judges, not allowing them to use common sense. Rather, I would like to see those who don't possess common sense removed from office.

Like our founders, I am opposed to foreign wars, in which we were not acting in our defense. However, there too, not every situation is the same. Perhaps Hitler needed to be confronted, and such a confrontation may be in our defense. However, the reasons given for our involvement in war are usually manufactured for that purpose. Like with the coronavirus, if we're given inaccurate information designed to bring about a specific goal, we can't be expected to arrive at a reasonable conclusion.

Judges should rule strictly on the basis of the law, but sentencing should take everything into consideration. I'd like to see Supreme Court justices chosen for their willingness and ability to make Constitutional decisions without regard for the political outcome. However, I can appreciate that, if one Party is nominating activist judges, the other has to do the same in order to remain relevant.

 

Yes, and thank you.