… call yourself a Democrat or a Republican?
I asked that question in an earlier post last year. After reading Paradox13VA’s recent post on his political philosophy, I thought it might be time to revisit it. His are some powerful words:
They say that a Republican is a Democrat who has been robbed, and a Democrat is a Republican who got laid off. All I know is that I’m a Democrat because I believe in the power of the public, through their agent the government, to help those who can’t help themselves. And it is only the government with the authority and legitimacy to do so equally and fairly. Sometimes they get it wrong, but they get it right way more often than any of the alternatives.
With the dysfunctional nature of Washington – how’s that divided government thing working? – and more people being turned off from politics in general, the question remains: what specifically makes you call yourself a Democrat or Republican? (Or independent or Libertarian or …)
Inquiring minds want to know 😉
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Al Gore made me a republican and George Allen made me furious at republicans. Both parties are broken. They make foes out fo friends and turn neighbor against neighbor for political leverage. You and I have much in common but we allow power hungry politicians to put us at odds with each other. Dems and GOP divide our nation.. This is not what the framers intended, in fact they warned us.
This surprises me as much as anybody, because we don’t agree much over on BD, but I’m with Turbo. Both parties are broken. Both appeal to a smaller and smaller group of extremists on either wing. Both are more interested in playing partisan games than actually governing the country or the state. When Tea Party types talk about “unconstitutional” parts of our government, I always wonder why they don’t get around to the role the parties play…because they have no role under the Constitution and the Founders explicitely warned us about the evils that entrenched political parties would produce.
I want to know what part of the Democratic Party appeals to its fringe, Steve, because I’m just not seeing it. I totally agree that both parties are broken, but for different reasons. I do agree with Turbo that we’ve been put at odds with each other, and that is a big part of the reason I stay away from national politics. I’m convinced our only hope is getting better people elected locally, so they can go on to become better at the state and then national levels.
Viv,
Here’s how I meant that. Democrats, like Republicans, have a set of litmus issues that their candidates must toe the party line on. Some of them are the same…abortion and guns for instance. These are not the issues that American really cares about in most cases. In the case of abortion I know that’s true for sure. Most of us aren’t that interested in abortion, it’s not the be-all and end-all for us that it is for a segment of people on both the right in the Republican Party and — a smaller section to be sure … of the left in the Democratic party. Most of America wishes the Democrats and Republicans would shut up about it.
Democrats don’t enforce their litmus tests. That’s a pretty big difference. If they did, there would be a lot more left-wing Democratic candidates. Outside of Democratic strongholds, there simply aren’t any. On the other hand, there are a number of right-wing Republican candidates.
And there are a whole lot of RINOs. Just look at the Republicans’ last two presidential nominees. McCain had his name attached to any “bi-partisan” bill that expanded the government, and Bush gave us NCLB and Medicare Part D. Look at our Senate leadership — caving to Obama. Then there are the “Republican” Senators from Maine.
There are two main reasons I’m a Republican.
First, as a devout Catholic, the Republican line on moral issues is fairly close to my thinking (actually, I’m further right on most), while the Democrats (and Libertarians) are moral cesspools. As such, I was a Huckabee voter in 2008, and wanted him to run again in 2012.
Second, as a disabled person, I’ve had to deal with many bureaucracies in my life. I’ve learned first-hand that government is inherently dysfunctional. In fact, I’ve seen the very agencies intended to help the disabled victimize the clients they were suppose to be helping.
In turn, I despise the tea baggers, whose Social Darwinism is the antithesis of Church social teachings.
I think you can disagree with the moral stances of those who don’t think like you without calling them cesspools. Same with the Tea Party members.
A Roman Catholic voting for a Southern Baptist Minister will wonders never cease.
So, how is what you want different from a Theocracy?
We do know that Libertarians are Republicans who want to get high and get laid….
Henry, I am a avid partisan Democrat, I am willing to put the quality of the children I have helped raise, love of Country, Commonwealth and fellow human beings up against any right wing republican. I find your statement offensive, repugnant and ill -informed. Also as a Catholic, I find the most offensive violators of Catholic teachings of Chirst to be the republicans with there assaults on “the least among you, you treat me”. Social Justice is Catholicism.
To answer the question, I am a Democrat because I think the government has a role to play in creating a society that serves us all through the commons, an economy that works for most and a safety net for those most at risk, like maybe THE DISABLED. We are the party of fighting for working wages with benefits, equal opportunity and justice for all. We gauge the health of our society by how those at the bottom are faring and not the top. We understand it is the poor, working poor and the middle class that are the drivers of our economic engine and pass policies towards them. The Republicans are now and always have been the opposite with showering benefits to the top and wait for it to trickle down on the rest.
I am a Democrat because most benefits people take for granted in this country where most likely delivered to you by the blood, sweat and tears of organized labor or Democratic policies. I also believe we are the pro-life party, once one has left the womb.
Charles,
You want to try to pretend the Democratic Party has anything to do with Church teachings on abortion, school prayer & choice, etc.?
You reference The Final Judgement in Matthew 25. One of the reasons I could never be a Libertarian. However, how do you think the social safety net gets paid for? You’re not going to have the funds to pay for such if you tax and regulate the economy into a downturn. Republican pro-business policies can generate more revenue, it’s then what government does with that money.
Not being Catholic, what’s the difference between the Church’s teachings on abortion and choice? I thought they were the same thing, i.e., no abortion/choice.
School choice, vouchers that could used for sending children to Catholic schools.
Ah, gotcha. So the Catholic church teaches that the government should provide resources for parents to send their kids to Catholic schools and, presumably, other religious schools? Interesting.
Vivian,
Not exactly:
1. The Church supports school vouchers.
2. It expects Catholic parents to choose a Church school as much as any other school.
The party closest to my view s is the Libertarian Party. I am staunchly conservative. That means that I don’t want the government to say who can and cannot get married, but even more I oppose the government’s forcing Catholic Charities to offer abortion services to homosexual couple, or forcing corporations to give them benefits.
Drug use is stupid, but federal drug laws are unconstitutional.
There is nothing biblical about our social programs. They are theft. They are also unconstitutional.
So are the guns control laws that the left keeps pushing.
The Democrats may be a “moral cesspool,” but Reagan was an adulterer. Did Jane Wyman cheat on him? McCain is an adulterer — did his crippled wife Carol cheat on him. I’ve lost count of Gingrich’s wives. Did they all cheat on him? That is the ONLY allowable reason for divorce. Sure, Bill cheated on Hillary, but they are reconciled now. There is not even a hint of such impropriety in the Obamas. So don’t give me the Republican moral high ground speech — their high ground is quicksand if they see a candidate they like.
“forcing Catholic Charities to offer abortion services to homosexual couple”? Uh…Warren…why would a homosexual couple need an abortion?
You wrote it, so I had to call you on it. This being Vivian’s blog, I was trying to be polite and stay away from the GLBT issues.
Brain fart!! 🙂 Adoption, obviously.
There are gay couples who get pregnant, although I doubt if any would want abortions 🙂
As for staying away from LGBTQ issues – I think we all know where you stand, Henry, based on your “I’m further right than most” Republicans line.
“There are gay couples who get pregnant….”
I know this is a PG blog, but how does THAT work?
The same way it works for other couples. The same options exist, you know.
What ARE the options for getting a male pregnant? What are the options for combining the DNA of two women?
And now you’re just being ridiculous, Warren. Because straight infertile couples have the exact same problems. The solutions available to them are the same solutions available to gay couples. And you know that is the case.
I call myself an independent because I believe both parties are just the product of special interest money. Here’s a serious thought for you: The House of Representatives is supposed to be the people’s house. However, if you and ten people who lived in a Congressman’s district asked to see that Congressman to talk about financial issues while the Dodd-Frank legislation was pending, you’d be lucky if you could speak to a 23 year old legislative assistant for 20 minutes in a conference room. However, what if a bank lobbyist who does not live in the district shows up with a check for $2000 to a re-election campaign? I guarantee that lobbyist would get a personal audience with the Congressman. And don’t fool yourself, it does not matter what party the Congressman belongs to……
That’s why I find partisan people so amusing. People get so worked up over these elections, and yet nothing changes at the federal or state level. I don’t know of a single individual who can explain with any clarity what the mission is in Afghanistan at this point. Counterinsurgency doesn’t even seem to garner much interest any longer in Afghanistan. It’s quite obvious to all but the blind that the gov’t there is nothing more than a group of stooges living off of American money, the day we leave, they’ll fold like a cheap suit. The corruption is appalling. Yet, whether it’s an R or D Pres, Senator or Congressman, none have the courage to actually vote to end the operation (except for Kucinich and Paul….)
Cohen and Vaughan are right. The parties live to divide and to make money in office and especially out of office as lobbyists and consultants….what a joke.
And that’s why I think local politics are so much more important than state or national politics. The ability to affect change starts at the bottom. Washington is hopeless – two sides of the same coin bowing to the same master: money. And Richmond is increasingly becoming the same.
In Texas, I was just disaffected. Corporate life made me cynical. But now I think I am just jaded. I don’t know what party that puts me in. I still identify as a Democrat though for whatever that is worth.
Virginia works pretty well though. Hopefully, we can keep the crazy to a minimum.
I am an independent. I read a story recently that said people say they are independent because they don’t want to admit to people what party they are in. I do not believe that. I think that both parties have gone to the more extreme point of their parties and a lot of people in the middle feel that they just don’t fit anywhere.
I got very disillusioned when I voted for someone I thought would be good for my area and then the party tells them how they must vote and they do. I voted for them because of their ideals but then they get in office and vote as the party tells them to vote not on the platform the candidate ran on. That is what really turned me off of the parties.
Then when you add the fact that pacs and large groups are paying huge donations to people and then they vote their way not for what is good for the citizens over all it is just depressing.
I do see why most people give up and don’t vote at all. And really in a lot of cases what is the point because a lot of time you don’t even get a choice. I was at a meeting this weekend where groups were talking about debates. One of the largest localities in the state was talking about how they had no contested races. So really if the other party doesn’t even bother to run anyone do they expect people to care?
I think it is coming to the point where the only people who seem to care are the extremest of both parties. Everyone else is starting to give up.
Both parties are flawed. I tend to like candidates that are not afraid to stand up to the lock step movement of either party. A rather strange example would be “It took Nixon to go to China”