So in the Hillary thread, TreeTwista trotted out a tired old line about how the Democrats and Republicans are indistinguishable from one another. We've seen this a lot over the years, but I don't think I've ever seen anybody actually try to back it up. Would someone care to?

Don't tell us that they're both bought and paid for by special interests. Special interests are behind every politician. What you mean is that the big parties are "the same" in that neither of them has been bought and paid for by your preferred special interests. That does not make them the same.

In a similar vein, don't point to a couple of issues on which they have basic agreement. No, neither party seems to be in a hurry to legalize prostitution or abolish the military or privatize roads. This does not make them "the same," either.

While we wait, let's consider how much difference would really be desirable. We don't often think about it, but on some level we want there to be a lot of overlap. It would be disturbing if one of the parties moved to being neutral on terrorism, in favor of crime, or opposed to economic growth. No, on balance we expect them to agree with us and with each other on the big stuff. Then they disagree, within certain bounds, on the means to those ends. This is how it is supposed to work. The options are supposed to be close enough together that nobody thinks the victory of the other side will destroy the country. And in an ideal world, there are liberal republicans and conservative democrats, so that there's enough variation within parties that even if the organization says one thing, a significant minority of members will say the other. This isn't a conspiracy to delude you into a sense of choice, this is how good government works.

Of course, you also don't want the old Kodos vs. Kang election where both sides are literally the same:

"Abortions for all!"
(Boo!)
"Very well, no abortions for anyone."
(Boo!)
"Hmmm...Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!"
(Cheers!)

But we obviously, manifestly don't have that. The parties disagree strenuously on a lot of things, even big ends rather than the means to meet them. The GOP and Democratic parties disagree wildly on questions of environment. Maybe neither side is as extreme as you want them to be, but that's where their "sameness" ends. They disagree on some (but not all) important questions about the role of personal liberty in this country. Their plans for the economy and taxation go in diametrically opposite directions.

So please tell me, how are the parties the same? How different do they have to be, in your minds?

8/10/2016 10:53:56 AM

They both give lip service to significant public issues, that their respective constituencies seem to care about, and then don't do shit about them once elected.

They both use insignificant wedge issues, where there is no hope of agreement with the opposition, to distract from larger more significant issues where some compromise might be possible. (It's easier to make an ideological, partisan stand in a bill you know will be shot down than to get your hands dirty and make some political sausage).

[Edited on August 10, 2016 at 11:21 AM. Reason : There's some difference in tactics between the parties, but many similarities here]

8/10/2016 11:18:06 AM

The only context with which I've heard the term "both parties are the same" you've already shot down, which basically says this:

Both parties are composed of primarily lifelong politicians whose sole purpose is re-election.

To that end, yes, both parties are comprised laregely of people with the same motives - to keep their current employment. They'll do whatever they feel is necessary to accomplish that goal.

But I've never understood why we have to lump ourselves into two groups anyway. I guess two is just a good number. I don't fall into really either category, as I'm for the most part conservative, but I'm pretty left when it comes to environmental issues. Just on environmental issues alone, I would get kicked out of any conservative clique if I belonged to any. Also, I don't really give a rip about social issues (anymore, synapse can bring up my posts about abortion, but we have bigger fish to fry).

But a third party in this country will never take off. We're just stuck with two that are the same in that their full of people lying to us to keep their jobs, but they cater their lies to match with their constituents. The constituency is where you'll find where both parties are different - not Washington DC.

8/10/2016 11:21:34 AM

their rhetoric is vastly different their governing is pretty much the same. there is very little difference in the obama and bush administrations but they talk about things differently. Obama says no boots on the ground but runs a covert war. bush says we need to go get wmd and runs a war in your face. they both do the same thing but lie to the people about it in a different way.

democrats said they wanted healthcare for all
republicans said they wanted free market for health insurance
democrats passed a law that force people to use the market for health insurance

that opened my eyes. I'm thinking why on earth with 2 yeras supermajority would the democrats "shove down our throats" a partisan bill that doesn't wipe out the free market and create publicly funded universal healthcare?

They know they are the same and the narrative of "us vs them" is what keeps them both alive.

If trump or hillary were to drop out of the race right now, the other would lose the election hands down.

8/10/2016 11:54:28 AM

perhaps you missed the part where all democrats didn't vote for the bill in the house and they could have lost even more (and thus failed to pass entirely) with a public option. there would have been zero ramming through of everything.

i know it's hard for your simple mind to comprehend, but just because they have a (D) next to their name doesn't mean they all think the exact same thing or represent constituencies who all think alike.

Quote :

"If trump or hillary were to drop out of the race right now, the other would lose the election hands down."

[Edited on August 10, 2016 at 12:18 PM. Reason : .]

8/10/2016 12:17:38 PM

Quote :

"that opened my eyes. I'm thinking why on earth with 2 yeras supermajority would the democrats "shove down our throats" a partisan bill that doesn't wipe out the free market and create publicly funded universal healthcare?"

Because that's not how our system of representative democracy works? What you've just highlighted is the difference between politicians who are actually interested in passing useful legislation, and ideological purists who take their ball and go home when they don't get their way.

8/10/2016 12:19:51 PM

Quote :

" know it's hard for your simple mind to comprehend, but just because they have a (D) next to their name doesn't mean they all think the exact same thing or represent constituencies who all think alike."

Too bad you're not looking at yourself here, because, as a Republican or conservative, I'm immediately branded a racist.

8/10/2016 12:27:54 PM

i don't think all R's are racist. i have good friends who are R's who are anything but racist. they tend to be the b-school guys who just want to minimize their tax burden for purely selfish reasons. i think they're socially irresponsible, but I don't hate them for it.

i do think anyone who can support trump is racist. or at best is willing to tacitly approve racism.

[Edited on August 10, 2016 at 12:31 PM. Reason : .]

8/10/2016 12:29:17 PM

Quote :

"because, as a Republican or conservative, I'm immediately branded a racist."

No you're fucking not.

8/10/2016 12:34:59 PM

Quote :

"They both use insignificant wedge issues, where there is no hope of agreement with the opposition, to distract from larger more significant issues where some compromise might be possible."

The fact that there are "issues where some compromise might be possible" shows us that they are not the same. And yeah, they use similar tactics. This should shock nobody. Everybody has figured out what works, and they do that. Besides, the list of available tactics in politics is short once you rule out variations on "sending goons to beat up the other side" or "just not having elections anymore."

That the tactics used are generally shitty I will freely admit.

Quote :

"But I've never understood why we have to lump ourselves into two groups anyway. I guess two is just a good number."

We used to have a lot more nuance within those two -- conservative democrats and liberal republicans existed once, back in the good old days. The problem has been the increasing trend towards rigid party alignment, which the Republican side really drove.

8/10/2016 1:05:18 PM

Quote :

"i know it's hard for your simple mind to comprehend, but just because they have a (D) next to their name doesn't mean they all think the exact same thing or represent constituencies who all think alike."

No that is actually my point. This makes there no distinct line between democrats and republicans. Its just a spectrum with some democrats on the left, some republicans on the right but most of them clustered in the center looking exactly the same.

Quote :

" Quote : "If trump or hillary were to drop out of the race right now, the other would lose the election hands down.""

Yeah almost everyone voting for hillary is doing it "to keep trump from winning" and almost everyone voting for trump is doing it "to keep hillary from winning". They are the two most unfavorable candidates of all time.

Quote :

"Because that's not how our system of representative democracy works? What you've just highlighted is the difference between politicians who are actually interested in passing useful legislation, and ideological purists who take their ball and go home when they don't get their way."

So why every election season do we hear the fear mongering "this is the most important election of our lifetimes, if the other side wins, they will fundamentally transform this country? Its all just rhetoric they know they will get in office and do the same corporate bs every year.

Quote :

""But I've never understood why we have to lump ourselves into two groups anyway. I guess two is just a good number.""

Its a great marketing scheme to keep people thinking they havea choice. "One party system" just doesn't sound appealing.

8/10/2016 3:19:48 PM

they are about as different as coke and pepsi i'd say

8/10/2016 4:05:40 PM

Quote :

"Yeah almost everyone voting for hillary is doing it "to keep trump from winning""

Hillary had the bulk of democratic support before we knew Trump would be the nominee, and she had fans to rival Obama in 2008 -- back when the opponent was John McCain, who nobody pretended to think would destroy the country. There's a lot of people voting "against," but it's not as many as you seem to think.

Quote :

"Its just a spectrum with some democrats on the left, some republicans on the right but most of them clustered in the center looking exactly the same. "

This is demonstrably untrue: by every metric the center has shrunk dramatically, to the point where it barely exists in Congress.

http://www.people-press.org/2014/06/12/political-polarization-in-the-american-public/

8/10/2016 4:48:12 PM

All Trump's fault.

8/10/2016 5:31:15 PM

Quote :

" The fact that there are "issues where some compromise might be possible" shows us that they are not the same. "

Not sure I follow. Because the parties share areas of compromise, it's evidence that they are different? Wut? I dont think they are really related.

Quote :

"That the tactics used are generally shitty I will freely admit"

It's the end results, using the same shitty tactics, that causes everyone to say "they're the same." By saying "these are the tactics that work" I assume you mean works for the politicians and their rich donor friends. That's the basic tactic, exclaim your priorities loudly to the public, sprinkle some faux votes in so you can say you did your best, then carry water for rich donors as hard as you fucking can. Democrats call out conservadems and Republicans call out RINOs, but both parties make the average voter cynical because of this same method.

8/10/2016 7:11:15 PM

"Listen Liberal" http://listenliberal.com/ is a pretty good book from the same author as "What's the Matter with Kansas?" It outlines how the Democratic party, previously party of the white working class and unions, is now the party of the technocratic elite, professional class and general white collar. Democrats in the modern era are the party that was responsible for 3 strikes laws, welfare reform, and deregulation of wall street.

Some of the political language like them being socialists is just a relic of the past. The parties are similar in that both are beholden to corporate masters just different ones: Democratic masters are Apple, Goldman, and Google. Republicans are beholden to the oil and gas industry, Koch Industries and Halliburton.

[Edited on August 10, 2016 at 11:53 PM. Reason : a]

8/10/2016 11:51:15 PM

Quote :

"Not sure I follow. Because the parties share areas of compromise, it's evidence that they are different?"

com·pro·mise
'kämpr??miz/
noun
1. an agreement or a settlement of a dispute that is reached by each side making concessions.

A compromise necessitates a dispute which necessitates differences. You can't compromise between two things that are the same.

---

Quote :

"The parties are similar in that both are beholden to corporate masters just different ones"

Any political entity is going to be supported by special interests -- and in this case neither party's list is limited to corporations.

8/11/2016 8:06:55 AM

Of course, but the point is they left one special interest, unions, that had alignment with the common folk and picked up new special interests that don't. That's why liberals care more about organic kale, $10 juice, and where people can use the bathroom. None of which concern the people in Snow Camp, NC

8/11/2016 9:57:15 PM

Bush-era neocons are flocking to Hillary in droves. For some reason Democrats are proud of that rather than ashamed.

Not saying the two parties are the same but neither one is anywhere near left wing.

8/11/2016 10:08:05 PM

No ones arguing that the parties don't present themselves as vastly different from each other and use vastly different rhetoric. No ones arguing that there aren't large swaths of the population with views that are extremely different from one another (party voters). We are saying that at the end of the day, they are virtually the same in policy. Sure there are the social issues that don't really affect the budget either way that they disagree on but that is mainly just to keep our attention off of the key big money issues they are similar on.

Heres how it works:

When republicans are in charge they are moderately right of center and compromise from that position
1. more politicians within the democratic party shift left and become vocal
2. this allows them to compromise from a position further left than natural
3. the left-shifted politicians can still blame the republicans in charge (if anything goes wrong ie budget, financial crash, wars, etc), capture the attention of the people and eventually win the election

When democrats are in charge they are moderately right of center and compromise from a weak center position
1. more politicians within the republican party shift right and become vocal (tea party movement)
2. this puts pressure on the democrats to compromise back to the middle again (affordable care act)
3. the tea party movement can still blame the democrats in charge (when the same things from above continue to go wrong) See: "bush created isis" and "obama created isis", capture the attention of the people and eventually win the election (look how "reasonable" boehner became after 2010).


If the party's were real you would see the party in power compromising from their pure position and the results would always be in favor of the party in control.

People like bernie sanders and Ted Cruz exist and make headlines but are virtually non-existent in terms of law-making. They are outliers who rev up the base but don't actually nave power. They are key though because if they weren't there to blame the other side's fundamental differences for all of the problems, people would revolt against the status quo and hold the entire system accountable. Its like playing good cop, bad cop. As long as two faces exist, you will never blame the entity or hold the entity accountable, you will just oscillate between blaming one party or the other. Its a genius system of manipulation.

I'm not just making this shit up. Take a close look at these compasses and look how far left obama was when bush was the president and then look how far right he was after winning the election. Basically, every president ends up at that exact same position. That is the position of our one party.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-36hwk8ky3ew/Udi5cgj72qI/AAAAAAAAAL8/8k_BudiJ-Ew/s1600/ideology.png
so obama beats mccain and then becomes him. why would he do that?




jeb showed his cards too early. he presented himself as what the next president will actually be but thats not what voters want then tried to shift right on debate stages but it was too late. nobody wants that position (except like 4% of republicans) but that is what we are guaranteed to get. Trump played far up and right to win the nomination.


as expected, all of the gop clustered far right, but they will move back to romney when they finnally win


[Edited on August 12, 2016 at 2:05 AM. Reason : j]

8/12/2016 1:40:44 AM

that chart should say "anarchy" where it says "libertarian"

8/12/2016 7:52:49 AM

given that those charts moved obama from election to election, i can logically conclude that whatever they are predicting for 2016 shouldn't be paid attention to, because they really don't know.

remember, this is just made by some dude who wants to prove his point, so the input will be whatever they want to make the plots tell the story they want them to tell

i also found a chart online that refutes your argument



[Edited on August 12, 2016 at 9:10 AM. Reason : .]

8/12/2016 9:05:11 AM

Dude, you made that chart!

And think you should relabel the x-axis from TIME to AS THE TRUTH IS EXPOSED ABOUT HILLARY CLINTON

8/12/2016 9:31:29 AM

but if that was the case, then that would mean that as more truth is exposed, clinton's "is gud" value increases. a little antithetical to your stance, isn't it?

[Edited on August 12, 2016 at 9:47 AM. Reason : .]

8/12/2016 9:47:30 AM

I guess that depends on your point of view.

Do you hold her in higher esteem and everyone else in lower esteem as the truth is coming out?

I would say that is exactly my point.

8/12/2016 9:50:09 AM

I feel like I should play "Nearer My God to Thee" every time you post. ride the ship down, son.

8/12/2016 9:59:01 AM

^ see...ad hominem.

Your argument falls apart, and you default into liberal tactics.

8/12/2016 10:02:16 AM

not everything is ad hominem. saying you stick to your guns even when you're blatantly wrong certainly isn't.

8/12/2016 10:08:19 AM

agreed

oh wait you were talking about me

that's cute

[Edited on August 12, 2016 at 10:09 AM. Reason : cute!]

8/12/2016 10:09:33 AM

Quote :

"No ones arguing that the parties don't present themselves as vastly different from each other and use vastly different rhetoric. No ones arguing that there aren't large swaths of the population with views that are extremely different from one another (party voters). We are saying that at the end of the day, they are virtually the same in policy. Sure there are the social issues that don't really affect the budget either way that they disagree on but that is mainly just to keep our attention off of the key big money issues they are similar on."

Damnit, I agree with Earl on something

8/12/2016 7:01:49 PM

I think GrumpyGOP's problem is that when he finally realized that the GOP was shit, instead of making the next logical step that the Democrats are also shit, he decided "omg the GOP sucks, I will start supporting the Democrats because they're different so therefore better," even though they're not even really different.

8/12/2016 8:19:45 PM

both major parties believe in a bigger federal gubmint. that's all i really need to know.

8/13/2016 12:50:02 AM

When people say the parties are the same they mean they waste money and are corrupt. Obama created Obamcare and cut military spending. If Trump wins he wants to scrap Obamacare, but increase military spending. Where is money saved then? It's the same outcome only the money is spend differently.

8/14/2016 10:20:33 AM

Quote :

"GrumpyGOP's problem is that when he finally realized that the GOP was shit, instead of making the next logical step that the Democrats are also shit, he decided "omg the GOP sucks, I will start supporting the Democrats because they're different so therefore better," even though they're not even really different."

No, I still think the Democrats are shit, too. They're both shit. But they're not the same kind of shit, and here lately one of the shits stinks a lot less.

Having established that everybody thinks that both sides secretly agree on the important policies (which I think is manifestly untrue, but OK, fine), we still haven't touched on what amount of difference is desirable.

8/14/2016 3:39:09 PM

Quote :

"Obama created Obamcare and cut military spending"

he cut military spending all the way back to where it was....when he took office.



[Edited on August 15, 2016 at 10:34 AM. Reason : /]

8/15/2016 10:33:42 AM

yeah, because he hates america and wants the terrorists to win

8/15/2016 10:37:36 AM

maybe ISIS is like bots in a video game. you know, you make them just so you can kill them and raise your stats.

so obama created isis just so he could kill them and distract america from him implementing sharia law.

makes sense if you think about it.

8/15/2016 10:43:12 AM

OBAMA DID HARAMBE

8/15/2016 10:53:44 AM

^

We have to go deeper.

8/15/2016 4:02:34 PM

^^^^^Maybe so, but Trump still wants to up the military spending, if he gets in while cutting Obamacare. Both parties find ways to spend money no matter what.

8/15/2016 11:52:16 PM

Quote :

"Sure there are the social issues that don't really affect the budget either way that they disagree on but that is mainly just to keep our attention off of the key big money issues they are similar on"

Apparently several others in this thread disagree: Obamacare and the military are certainly key big money issues on which the parties disagree.

8/16/2016 1:25:36 PM

they disagree in small nuance on healthcare. obamacare is a mandate for employer funded private insurance. Republicans want a mandate for individual funded private insurance. They both want government mandated private insurance.

8/16/2016 2:12:32 PM

^Actually they both want to control the people and force their ideas and values on everyone. Republicans being in favor of less government is BS. They just want to pass different laws.

8/16/2016 9:33:11 PM

Quote :

"they disagree in small nuance on healthcare. obamacare is a mandate for employer funded private insurance. Republicans want a mandate for individual funded private insurance. They both want government mandated private insurance."

Barack Obama has said several times that his preference would be for a single-payer plan. Republicans want to gut Medicare. The compromise between those two (and I'll admit, a fairly shitty compromise it is) is Obamacare.

8/17/2016 8:27:09 AM

Quote :

" Republicans want to gut Medicare"

bull crap. W bush expanded the crap out of it

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicare_Part_D


republicans seem to do the opposite of what they say which is one of main reasons trump was able to get nom

[Edited on August 17, 2016 at 9:03 AM. Reason : r]

8/17/2016 9:01:02 AM

You're right. Sorry. More of a post-obamacare reaction in the GOP, really.

8/17/2016 9:03:28 AM

^nobody that is paying attention thinks they will actually cut anything. again, they just say that to get the gullible vote

8/17/2016 9:21:42 AM

Quote :

"bull crap. W bush expanded the crap out of it"

There's something W did 13 years ago, and there's many individual GOP supporters who are always railing against "free stuff," including many of the 2016 GOP presidential candidates, and the current GOP legislators like Paul Ryan who want to dismantle it. I can't imagine what most GOP members of the house want to do to it

8/17/2016 10:26:47 AM

^last time i'll make this point itt

you have to look at what they DO, not what they SAY(which is irrelevant). they have been funding obamacare for 6 years now. there is no reason to think paul ryan would cut anything much less entitlements. hell he voted for 700 billion in bailouts when W was still around





[Edited on August 17, 2016 at 11:41 AM. Reason : s]

8/17/2016 11:38:09 AM

remind you that shitty compromise took place during a democrat supermajority so it was either fake or a compromise within the party. either way, it supports the parties being the same.

8/17/2016 11:43:43 AM