You know why some think there's little difference between the two parties?

[cthulu2016]

Last edited Tue Jul 3, 2012, 03:28 PM - Edit history (1)

There are great, sizable, profound differences between the two parties, but many people think there's little difference.

Perhaps that is because we, Democrats, have been telling them precisely that for a generation! Whatever the difference may be, voters aren't likely to hear about them from us.

Our whole shtick is to minimize the difference and promise to do a slightly better managed and marginally more compassionate job in implementing the Republican agenda.

Our best argument for our economic stewardship is that rich people and the stock market actually do better under Democratic presidents.

Our big defense of ACA is that it's a Republican idea.

Our big defense of our foreign policy is that we blow up more people, and at lower cost.

We buy into absolute nonsense about smaller government and cutting spending and reducing the deficit.

We are actually bragging that Obama cut the size of government.

The Republicans say we share no priorities in common and we rush to disagree with them. "Oh no. That's a slander! Of course we have the same general priorities."

There are indeed great differences between the two parties... but unfortunately they are differences that we are self-conditioned to deny.

[ret5hd]

1. Ramen.

[HiPointDem]

2. good point.

[vi5]

3. Bingo. Hit the nail on the head.

This is a point that is too infrequently addressed in the discussion of "Is there a difference between the parties?"

It's not that there aren't differences, it's that our side tries to minimize them at best and pretend they don't exist at the worst.

They accept Republican framing of EVERY SINGLE ISSUE and then try to position themselves as little to the left of that as they can.

[HereSince1628]

4. I think it has a lot to do with Clinton Advisor Dick Morris

According to some in the first Clinton administration, no one had more influence with Clinton than Morris

All the populist triangulation, "ME TOO, I BELIEVE THAT TOO!", messaging that was the DLC/Third Way becames huge under Morris' influence.

Interesting that Morris is now a regular contributor to Fox News. I can't help but think that he knew exactly how to split democrats from their labor base AND make the democratic message sound like republican lite.

[leveymg]

5. Both parties have moved to the Right. Bush Sr. would fit comfortably into the Democratic leadership

St. Ronnie would probably be too liberal for today's GOP.

The problem is, both parties are corporate owned.

[Lionessa]

6. Exactly, they seem to think they are only relevant if they push to the right,

and bad mouth the left.

[HughBeaumont]

7. The differences are only social.

Thanks to Conservative Clinton's embrace of deregulation, smaller government (as opposed to more effective government) and free trade . . . there is no option economically. Democrats are becoming more Friedman-like every damned decade and I'm SICK of it. We need to start embracing progressive values that WORK, not hyper-capitalist bullshit that works for no one but the 1%.

[Iggy]

9. Correct, and most people don't give a crap

about social issues. see my post down thread.

[Iggy]

8. Because when it comes to several

major policy issues there is NO significant difference between the "two" so called parties.

the operative phrase is "major policy issues", i.e. issues involving _money_. cultural/ideological
issues are more or less irrelevant-- they don't pay the mortgage.

[HiPointDem]

11. +1

[99Forever]

10. Yeppers

Precisely correct.

[Marrah_G]

12. There are differences, but there are also alot of things that stay the same.

I feel as though every election both sides start yelling "Gays, Guns, Abortion" and both sides get distracted fighting all while enabling the parties to rob us all blind.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

13. Maybe because another pending let's-send-even-more-jobs-to-foreign-countries "free-trade" agreement

is supported by the leadership of both parties?

Here's the wage-lowering, let's-send-more-jobs-to-foreign-countries free-trade agreements that have been signed so far:
1994 - North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)
2001 - Jordan – United States Free Trade Agreement
2004 - Australia-United States Free Trade Agreement
2004 - Chile - United States Free Trade Agreement
2004 - Singapore – United States Free Trade Agreement
2006 - Bahrain – United States Free Trade Agreement
2006 - Morocco - United States Free Trade Agreement
2006 - Oman – United States Free Trade Agreement
2007 - Peru – United States Trade Promotion Agreement
2005 - Dominican Republic–Central America Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA; incl. Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and the Dominican Republic)
2011 - Panama - United States Trade Promotion Agreement
2011 - Colombia - United States Trade Promotion Agreement
2011 - Republic of Korea (South Korea) - United States Free Trade Agreement

Trans-Pacific negotiations have been taking place throughout the Obama presidency. The deal is strongly supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the top lobbying group for American corporations. Obama's Republican opponent in the 2012 presidential elections, Mitt Romney, has urged the U.S. to finalize the deal as soon as possible.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/13/obama-trade-document-leak_n_1592593.html

What better way is there to make more money for the super-rich while killing American jobs?

[phantom power]

14. So... the result of all that is: there's a lot less difference.

QED

[ErikJ]

15. In last 50 yrs, Dems produced 42 million jobs vs. GOP 24 million jobs

In the last half century, the economy has produced 66 million private sector jobs—
42 million of them under Democratic presidents,
24 million under the Republicans. So you pick.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

28. Interesting statistics. In the same time period, how many jobs were created in foreign countries

by the leadership in the two parties pushing for wage-lowering, let's-send-more-jobs-to-foreign-countries "free-trade" agreements?

Any idea? Or would you say that the "free-trade" agreements did not result in the transfer of jobs to foreign countries?

[Jamaal510]

16. Somebody on this thread mentioned that both parties have moved rightward.

I don't think the Democratic party has really moved rightward; it's just that what was considered moderate years ago is now further right because the GOP platform has drastically shifted rightward. I think the Democratic party has actually been pretty liberal in issues such as advocating gay rights, renewable energy, coming out in favor of getting money out of politics, and taxation between the rich and poor.

[A Simple Game]

21. Even DU has moved to the right.

First line in the DU mission statement below.

Democratic Underground is an online community where politically liberal people can do their part to effect political and social change by:

The bold is mine.

When confronted about their politics, I have had people on DU brag about being conservative, and ask me what I was going to do about it. That wouldn't have happened when I first joined. It is my firm belief that DU is more conservative than liberal today, wasn't true in the past.

So do I think both parties have moved to the right? Darn right I think both parties have moved to the right.

[AnnieK401]

25. I have noticed that too

Still, DU is a liberal haven now compared to the comments section of the Huffington Post. I was just attacked Sat. by two conservative "cyber bullies." I never should have replied back to them, but something inside of me didn't want to let them have the last word. I finally did after an absurd amount of debate back and fourth. guess I'm not as crazy as they are. The GOP is getting very professional about this. They have prepared attacks for every argument and are targeting liberal sites in contests to see who is the most b**S**t

[patrice]

17. "voters aren't likely to hear about them from us." POWER #1, your voice + your ears. nt

[theaocp]

18. When's the last time two Democrats tried to out-do one another on who's the more liberal?

Republicans, by way of contrast, ALWAYS fight to be the more conservative. Is there a lesson here? Perhaps we shouldn't be fucking running from the liberal label ... unless we want to be seen as conservative? Put a couple fucking thoughts behind it, people.

[cthulu2016]

32. +1

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

19. When "Not as bad" is the selling point we get what they're selling..and that's all.

Last edited Tue Jul 3, 2012, 06:53 PM - Edit history (1)

However, for some of us it's a "No Sale".

[whatchamacallit]

30. +1 nt

[dtom67]

20. Social vs economic.

Dems: to the left for social issues and right for economic.
The parties are similar because they are both beholden to corporate money . Dems still talk about workers rights and living wages,but that is all they do. I will still vote for them because I know the repubs will f@ck me, whereas The Dems might throw us a bone.We are in a critical time for the Dems; they must soon start to show the people that they still represent them. That means things like single payer( Not Romneycare), end of Richey-rich tax cuts, return to regulation for big business and the world of finance. Reinstating the Trade laws that used to protect workers wages.etc....
Crap, gotta go......

[Quantess]

23. Yes. Exactly.

Welcome to DU!

[rhett o rick]

22. Two party system: The Conservative Party vs. the Whacko Party. nm

[DeSwiss]

24. K&R

''The problem, really, is idiotic attempts at “triangulation.” When Bill Clinton first adopted the strategy on 1992 and onwards, it worked remarkably well for him, and drove the GOP nuts, because he had adopted and claimed credits for many of their ideas (i.e. Welfare reform) while allowing him to push his own policy objectives (i.e. tax policy).

Since then, however, the GOP has learned to “game” the triangulation strategy. It’s simple. Triangulation is just another word for “meeting the opposition half way.” If you are in the opposition and want to successfully counter (or game) your opponent’s triangulation strategy, all you need to do is move so absurdly to the right that your opponent’s “triangulation” position falls precisely where you want it to fall. Instead of your opponent playing you, you are now playing him.

I only half-blame Bill Clinton for this. He may have been the first to successfully implement the strategy, but it’s a lack of imagination on the part of recent Democrats that they continue to rely on the strategy, even as it’s painfully obvious that it’s working against them.'' STINQUE.com ~Serolf Divad

[emulatorloo]

26. Um, no. IMHO you have created some StrawMan Democrat that doesn't exist.

Our best argument for our economic stewardship is that rich people and the stock market actually do better under Democratic presidents.

Our argument is everybody does better when Dems are in charge, not just the wealthy. See Clinton economy versus Bush economy

==

Our big defense of ACA is that it's a Republican idea.

LOL. No. Our defense of ObamaCare is that it means your insurance company can't drop you if they decide you cost too much. And so on.

==

Our big defense of our foreign policy is that we blow up more people, and at lower cost.

No. We tout our foreign policy because we engage is smart diplomacy and work with our allies. We don't start unnecessary wars like Republicans do.

==

We buy into absolute nonsense about smaller government and cutting spending and reducing the deficit.

Clinton left us with a surplus. Bush destroyed that. Republicans want to cut the deficit on the back of the middle class and those who can least afford it. Democrats want the wealthy to pay their fair share.

==

We are actually bragging that Obama cut the size of government.

No one is "bragging". That is the response to the Republican Lie about Obama's spending

==

The Republicans say we share no priorities in common and we rush to disagree with them. "Oh no. That's a slander! Of course we have the same general priorities."


I have no clue what you are talking about here.

[coalition_unwilling]

27. Maybe because of this?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

29. The DLC closed it's doors so things may improve

I think the Democratic Party learned something from the loss of the Blue Dogs in 2010.

The problem is many still in leadership positions are so used to catering to the Right that many don't even know what the Liberal alternatives are. Due to the game in DC where you score points by playing "kick the hippy" the mindset isn't in place to even take separate issues unique to Liberals into account. Many think the Liberals are just anti-Right with no actual ideas of their own or they have bought into the definition of Liberals presented by the Right. The one where Liberals think the world looks like this:

[img][/img]

When we know the world looks like this for far too many people:

[img][/img]

[mizzuz pibb]

31. Blah blah blah blah and more blah

It IS rigged. There IS only one party. Good night and good luck.

[progressoid]

33. We're not only telling people about these similarities, were embracing them.

Our best argument for our economic stewardship is that rich people and the stock market actually do better under Democratic presidents.

Our big defense of ACA is that it's a Republican idea.

Our big defense of our foreign policy is that we blow up more people, and at lower cost.

We buy into absolute nonsense about smaller government and cutting spending and reducing the deficit.

We are actually bragging that Obama cut the size of government.

quod erat demonstratum

[Raine]

34. One side SAYS they care, the other side lets it be known they don't but in the end they BOTH put the

big money interests first.

[Scuba]

35. Every tie we move right we tell the voters that the R's have the best ideas...

... and abandon another few hundred thousand People.