Differences between the parties - a different take and a question for you:

[Exiled in America]

I have a slightly more cerebral question, if anyone is willing to think more abstractly for a moment.

One of the hot button subjects on DU is the debate between those who say there are no differences between the Democratic and Republican Parties, and those who say that that two parties are fundamentally opposite from each other.

Defensiveness and frustration usually turn those discussions into flaming piles of poo. And I think the tone of those discussions tends to drive people with an alternative perspective away.

So I'd like to ask a different question, which I hope would create an atmosphere in which more thoughtfulness could occur:

Are you satisfied with the amount of difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party?

Democratic and Republican Party, in terms of:
- National Leadership
- Congressional Leadership
- Congressional Representatives on the whole
- State and Local

The understanding being that you can't talk about either party like a monolithic thing. But the question I have is, considering all these different dimensions to each party, in the overall analysis, are you satisfied with the amount of difference of policy, action and positions between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party?

Notice that I'm not saying there are no differences or that they are huge differences. I'm asking YOU if, after acknowledging that there are differences, you feel that the differences are different enough or not different enough?

[bryant69]

1. It's kind of an abstract question

But the only answer has to be that the differences aren't enough, particularly when you include the influence of DLC types.

on the other hand if we are pulling that far back, the current Republican brand of extremism is a huge problem; Bush and those who support him are far outside of what should be the bounds of rational debate. In a balanced fair America, I'd probably be in the other party.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

2. They are alike in that both sides take money

from special interest groups. That is why campaign financing reform is very important.

[Exiled in America]

3. Tackling my own question:

My answer to the question would be this:

No, I don't think the differences between the parties are distinct enough, though I do acknowledge there are some clear differences.

People who say the parties are exactly the same do a huge disservice to people who seek to make a much more important point. The two parties have differences, but they take the form of differences between two factions of the same larger unity.

We are living in a society that is absolutely and completely dominated by the Corporation, and the shadow cast by the business elite over the country. The Corporation wields the same power that the Church wielded in medieval times. It has acquired the legal standing of a person, it has manipulated the courts into enshrouding it with an whole array of rights and legal protections including shielding from stronger regulation. It is legally required to care only about the maximization of profit for its shareholders. It views the obedience to laws that attempt to safeguard the public from its excesses as part of a "cost-benefit" analysis - if its cheap to kill people, destroy the earth or rape and pillage communities than it is to follow the law, it becomes a simple business decision to engage in the former and not the latter.

The Corporation, after unsuccessful attempts to overthrow our constitutional democracy directly (see Smedely Butler) developed a new strategy for establishing the Fascist America it desired: it would simply buy the government. And so, in the 70s the new crusade began. The Corporation began to spend billions of dollars on lobbyists, buyout congressmen, judges, and even presidents in what is normally called "contributions of free speech" but what should only ever be called out right bribery.

The turned the nature of Government into a body that subordinately serves the interests of the Corporation. Our foreign policy continues to reflect the interests of the Business elite and not the interests of the American people. Our domestic policy, especially when it comes to labor and economics, continues to reflect the interests of major corporations at the upper percentiles of Americans at the expense of wages and quality of life for the rest of America.

But here's where it all comes together: The corporation gives equally to both parties. There is this myth that Republicans have major corporate donors while Democrats get their money from labor and teachers unions and the like. This is simply false. Corporations give money to both sides and invest in the entire political structure. They're not just buying a party - they are buying the entire system. Democrats and Republicans alike. They pour money into the Democratic Party just like they do into the Republican party. The most likely Democratic nominee for President in 2008, Hillary Clinton, is well on her way to being the most heavily corporate sponsored candidate we've ever seen. Forbes Magazine puts her on the cover and says "business loves Hillary!" Well of course they do. They paid for her. Just like they've paid for everything else. You would think they would be pleased with their purchase.

It's not just her. This isn't anti-Hillary. It is institutional criticism. It includes the major political players across the spectrum. Those that are less under their influence are also less likely to be contenders. In fact, to some extent you can't even be a contender anymore unless you have the approval of the almighty Corporation.

So, you have political parties that rhetorically differ from each other. For example, there is no question that Republicans have a different political ideology that Democrats on some level. Republicans and Democrats differ most on domestic social issues. There is a big reason for this - domestic social issues concern the Corporation much less than domestic and international economics. The Corporation does not have a significant vested interest in whether a woman has a right to choose. It may, to a lesser degree, but not nearly to the level that economic policy impacts it. So it applies less coercion over the parties to adopt a particular stance. Thus, the parties are free to disagree.

Most of the time however, the differences are not significant enough. Democrats are more friendly to the LGBT community than Republicans. But the Democratic Party still falls abysmally short of stances that are simply morally courageous and right. Both parties resist the subject of gay rights and equality, even though one side is rhetorically "for" it without making it a fundamental platform plank or a non-negotiable core party principle.

When it comes to economic policy domestically and internationally, both parties fall under the rule of the Corporation. Rhetorically, Republicans want to cut taxes for the rich and democrats want to raise taxes on the rich. Practically speaking, both parties have raised taxes on the middle class, and cut taxes for rich corporations and rich individuals. During the Clinton eara, according to a Government Accounting Office report, 61% of US Based Corporations paid ZERO in taxes. During the Clinton era, after all the of the tax loopholes and exemptions written into the tax code by both democrats and republicans, the wealthiest Americans paid far, far less than the 35-40% they claimed as their tax burden. In truth, the average was 11% - one of the lowest tax burdens out there. During the Bush era this has remained the same, reflect very little difference between economic philosophies of the parties. And before anyone cries that Clinton had a republican congress - the same thing was happening under Regan, who dealt with a Democratic congress.

The Corporation drives aggressive international policy. It is true that under Clinton, our aggressive international policy didn't always take the form of invasion, it remained true that our aggressive economic policies of globalization were thoroughly dictated by the corporation to serve its own interests at the expense of the people. NAFTA internationally and the Deregulation initiatives of the Clinton Administration domestically were both examples of a consistent policy that served the interests of the corporation at the expense of the people.

So, no - I don't believe there is sufficient difference between the two parties. I believe both parties ultimately serve the interests of corporations and the wealthy elite. Either party is allowed to "free lance" with its own issues within certain parameters, which creates the factional divides between democrats and republicans were certain differences can be noticed. We wouldn't have had a minimum wage increase under a republican congress. Of course at the same time, the minimum wage increase is not even close to a living wage, and is small enough to be allowed by the corporate masters.

We live in a constitutional democracy by name only. In reality, what we really live in is a corporate oligarchy.

The Democratic Party is part of the same institution that the Republican Party is a part of and the entire institution has been taken over by Corporate interests and completely corrupted. The level of political difference between the "far left" and the "far right" in this country is so small compared to what it is in the rest of the world.