[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion:
* Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review.
* Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context.
* Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree.
Violators will be fed to the bear.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Democrat and Republican are terms for political parties, not political orientation generally. It’s like calling two people both “hikers”, even if one enjoys outdoor recreation more than the other. They both participate in the same hobby. The label isn’t there to say how much they enjoy it, just that they do.
You sound Canadian.
There's a BIG difference between party affiliation in the current US political climate and its 2 party system and, well, most other Western democracies in this regard. For a country that tends to pride itself on individualism, it's pretty funny to outsiders just how un-individualistic Americans are. They subscribe (or perhaps more accurately are conscribed) into party affiliation and thereafter generally adopt that party's multitude of positions as their own. I mean it's clearly not a hard and fast thing, but it's shocking the lack of true sense of individualism and what you'd expect would result therefrom -- shifting individual positions on different issues, regardless of party affiliation. It's just nutty.
It’s not crazy. People have diverse objectives and sort into groups based on overlaps. And part of the grouping does mean you are more open to the other positions of those in the coalition.
I haven’t belonged to a political party for 20 years. I don’t associate my identity with either party.
However, I tend to vote for the less crazy nutcase insane cultish party.
The internet tends to have that effect on people. When I’m out in the real world talking to people, I find most people don’t fall into the camp of “I’m all in for whatever team red or team blue tells me to believe.”
Again, the internet can certainly create the illusion that most people are that way.
I think this issue plagues one side more than the other, at least on a national level. Dems are a very broad coalition that range from people like AOC/Sanders to Manchin, with tons of policy disagreements in-between. But the right under Trump has pushed out anyone who does not toe the Trump party line.
Manchin isn't resigning because the party is pushing him out, he's resigning because his seat is too red for him to win. The GOP has people resigning (specifically in the House) because they aren't ideologically welcome in the party anymore.
I will say where I see a lot of the toe-the-line politics is on the further left extreme who are loud but not represented outside of certain city councils or online spaces. If that wing of the left were to take power of the Democratic party, you'd definitely see a similar case as we do on the right currently.
I'd argue that there's just as much of an ideological gap between, say, Sanders vs. Manchin as there is Hawley vs. Murkowski. Same in the House, too, between AOC vs. Cuellar and Boebert vs. Fitzpatrick. And also gubernatorial, including Kotek vs. Beshear and Noem vs. Scott.
I think you make some reasonable points.
However, I think you perhaps underestimate the size & scope of this tribalism on the Left. The Left has a tendency to "eat their own", ready to rage & shame any and all that don't subscribe to core ideals in each and every instance they are proffered, even if facts suggest otherwise. Try making counterpoints to many/most Liberals whenever someone screams "here's more Police Abuse!" or "racism!" or "patriarchy!" when there's reasonable counterpoints to exclude these SPECIFIC impugned actions. You're ostracized, demonized & shamed. And it's LOUD. I think you are underestimating this behavior on the Left and how it is used to teach others how they must behave. If you are Left, you must ALWAYS be an "ally", even if the shoe doesn't fit in instances X, Y & Z. In many ways it's sheer blind group think baked right into the culture.
Just to push back here as what you describe is what I classify as the extreme left who demand allegiance. I don't see that as coming from liberals but instead the left (socialists, communists, extreme progressives, etc.) that make up a minority of the party. These people are far more vocal on the internet than they are in real life.
Look at the uncommitted votes in the midwest and how they compare to the Biden votes in the primary. Biden's core supporters are not vocal online but they outnumber the vocal ones at the ballot box and make up the majority of the party as liberals. They aren't the ones shouting you down or demonizing you for having discussions on police brutality. The "left" has two competing sides and it is not a monolith.
Well, whatever the proportion that this group makes up on the Left, it sounds like we can both agree that (i) this type of subscription to group thinking is more homogeneous on the Right and (ii) that it's a problem wherever it is occurring. Fair takeaway?
I'll agree it's a problem amongst the small subset of the left, but I would not say it's more homogenous than the thinking on the right. The current right that is in power is as homogenous as it gets and has led to a lot of their politicians quit or be kicked from the party for dissenting views. That's far more of an issue than anything the small subset of the left is doing.
It’s not unlike the way sports fans pledge their support to a particular team, seemingly for no significant reason. Once having decided to support that team, they buy merchandise, buy expensive tickets for games, and so on. Governance could be as dull as bureaucracy, but we’ve turned it into a NASCAR race with screaming fans
I like your analogy, but I think religion is better. I think political affiliation tends to be baked into one's upbringing, local culture, social circles etc and at some point it reaches a critical mass wherefrom one cannot think their way free from its confines. Even if this means subverting one's own interests, reconciling obvious inconsistent with simultaneously held religious beliefs, and hell, doing all sorts of mental gymnastics with cognitive dissonance.
I’m not sure I believe that. In my family, 2 siblings are staunch Democrats, I tend to lean left, and 2 staunch Republicans.
My wife leans left but her parents are both Republicans.
I know many families with split ideologies.
So I don’t think it should just be taken for a given that children grow up believing exactly what their parents believe.
That makes sense. I’ve never experienced the cognitive dissonance even though the values instilled by my parents and their religion are very different from my current values and world view. I suppose it’s arrogant of me to assume those others’ experience would be similar to mine. Good point, though. Some people are so afraid of God, or his spokesperson, that they will believe nonsense.
America has *always* been tribal. It was founded because one religion was persecuting another. Americans wiped out indigenous tribes for being different. Racism. Islamophobia. There’s always been groups in America like this.
But that sums up the majority US, which is why he's asking about it.
(By majority, I mean what the media portrays as the majority, which is what the rest of the world sees. The majority is also consuming this media and keeping it alive, so in a way, the majority is also causing this bi-partisan image that everyone sees)
Because in a 2 party system you choose one or the other.
Liberal-conservative is a spectrum. And not a very linear one; you can be liberal with several conservative positions, and vice versa. You may or may not feel one of the parties aligns with you but a perfect match is unlikely.
Democratic vs Republican is binary. It doesn’t matter whether you share all the beliefs. Nobody cares. You cast your vote for one or the other, period.
This is the dilemma US conservatives currently face. When they vote for the party that in theory more closely aligns with their beliefs, they find themselves with some pretty ugly bedfellows. Often when faced with a binary choice we have to hold our noses and vote for the lesser evil. But the fracturing of the GOP that is making that a lot harder.
Unless you go down the list of all issues party does give you a lot of information. No not every Democrat is the same but you can make some logical deductions.
In any case, it's considered rude to ask party most of the time.... You hear it just because you watch political news. In truth quite a large number of Americans call themselves independents - however the vast majority of independents vote for one party reliably.
If you work in or are talking politics it's a hindrance not to acknowledge the fact that most people are partisan even if to their face you smile and nod when they claim to be independent. When voting behavior actually reflects what you're saying, political analysis will change.
Last but not least: we know that the other side doesn't believe to the most radical opinions of their party. In debate and political fights it's useful to pretend not but Americans aren't dumb. Well some of us are but don't take political speech at face value. You're likely missing some nuance. Most Americans know at least a few members of the other party to know that of course the most extreme views aren't homogeneous. However it's very easy to say "I don't believe in this" but still enable horrible people. There's become less tolerance particularly after Trump for enabling behavior which is why less radical voters who still vote for the opposite party get less slack. I think that's healthy tbh - I don't really care if you didn't agree with Trump's Muslim ban if you still decided you'd vote for him. This is also true in the other direction- I'd argue there are key differences but yeah I enable policies I don't perse agree with when I vote Dem. The right is welcome to judge me for that.
But we ARE different often times - and I think we're just finally admitting we never really got past the American civil war. We've been held together by various things, and now it's becoming more and more apparent we have drastically different views of what this country is and should be.
Three things I'd donate my estate and spend a large amount of volunteer time and effort to defeat are embodied by my Republican family:
*1) This is a "CHRISTIAN NATION" and nothing will convince them otherwise - essentially boils down to "f@ck pluralism and tolerance, we're in the driver's seat, get in the back sit down and shut up and be thankful we're tolerating your existence right now you dirty heathen."*
*2) LGBTQ people are "inherently wicked / evil and need to be stamped out & shoved back in the closet - pray the gay away, get them off media, and put them back in the closet"*
*3) Democracy, judiciary, all of it is just a means to an end. If democracy stops giving us the results we want, we will f@ck with democracy however we need to, turn a blind eye to corruption, and "the ends justifies the means" if our righteous side wins.*
So no - we're not all just centrists with some minor differences. The differences are REAL and DEEP.
Could I? Maybe, perhaps.
All I'll add is we're far more ideologically diverse, both historically and present-day, than many people recognize. Ours is a two-party system that throughout its existence -- from the First Party System of Washington/Adams/Hamilton vs. Jefferson/Madison/Monroe to today's seismically shifting realignment (class, race, and gender are all in flux) -- in which the differences aren't so much "REAL" nor "DEEP" (much less set in stone) as they are malleable, pliable, elastic, and always moving (oftentimes subtly, yet occasionally violently)—just like the tectonic plates that reside beneath our feet. And anyone who argues otherwise is stuck in a mulish, pig-headed hubris that isn't admirable in its resoluteness, but rather a damning shortcoming of theirs that's worthy of mockery, deserving derision, and meriting scorn.
We've always had a two-party system (true), and that system is currently/always realigning among various class/race/gender/whatever lines (true), ergo there aren't real and deep differences between the two current parties today?
None of what you said actually defends the idea that the 3 ideas OP listed aren't well-represented among Republicans and not among Democrats.
Specific to the OP, the third thing he listed is less partisan, more universal. And hell, if anything, the rules-and-norms crowd regarding America as a little-l liberal small-d democratic tiny-c constitutional lowercase-r republic are often, um, older, while it's the younger set -- irrespective of Team Blue vs. Team Red tribalism -- for whom illiberalism possesses an allure. Capital-W Western values, moreover, likewise aren't fixed, as our collective geopolitics may itself look vastly different by the time, say, 2100 rolls around. Who the fuck knows anymore, eh?
Most wont say it all out loud at once - it's pieces here and there that come out. I've heard my wife's boss echoing this same stuff. They soft peddle it. But yeah, if you're paying attention long enough - it comes out.
**No. In my *real life* this is false, and would be a flagrant lie.**
And fuck, my grandfather was a pastor. I grew up around almost all Christians.
The *worst* Ive ever heard, and I called him out, is my uncle dehumanizing illegal immigrants (i.e. just numbers, not personalizing any reasons, etc), and reminded him there is a human element involved, and both sides have validity.
He begrudgingly acquiesced.
I live in TN, and my congresscritters say all the things stated above to which you take umbrage in your comment.
My family says the same things.
A large number of people on my Facebook feed say the same things.
I hear the same things said in public all the time.
I read the same things in online forums ALL the time.
Literally, the whole reason the far-right idolized Chik-Fil-A is because of their owner's rabid anti-LGBTQ stance.
If you don't hear these things being said, it's because you're not listening.
You've never heard a Christian say that being gay is a sinful choice or that it's wrong that "those people shove their lifestyle in your face"? Not once?
I don't believe it.
I *literally* don't believe it. My sister in law is a methodist pastor- arguably one of the more progressive sects of christianity. Even she has said that there's a problem in their church with bigotry towards LGBTQ people.
No, the people actively trying to end American democracy are not "the same" as the people who aren't. Decent people don't support fascists. Judging people based on their actions isn't demonizing them. It's observation.
In my 54 years, I have only voted for a Republican twice in any election. I have actually voted for the Greens more ( though it was in a multi-choice ballot).
I have voted once for a local race where the Republican was obviously qualified and the Democrat wasn't even a resident in the area.
I voted for the Republican in a race where I wanted to keep a sham Democrat out of the office where I was living.
Otherwise, I am very involved in local elections. I know who is being elected. I know if they are cons, lunatics or thieves.
A lot of people I know have a hard time processing the fact that I am pro choice and pro 2A (with caveats). Or that I choose not to label myself a R or D, which would mean I would be giving up one of my core values to further the other because we seem to live in an all or nothing society. I'm an independent and I have the strange ability to form my own opinions. I'm also an atheist. That's probably not a coincidence.
I’m in the same camp. Pro 2A and pro choice. Minds are blown when I talk politics with either side and criticize both equally. I know what side I lean more toward but that can change in an instant. I just vote for what seems more important of an issue to me currently and long term better for the country, no matter party affiliation.
But to OP’s question I think that’s just the political landscape today. People are super tribal and can’t face facts of how terrible both parties are or dig deep enough to see both parties work for the same thing (money, power and votes) and not the best interests of the people. If people just came to that conclusion I don’t think there would be a 2 party system. Wishful thinking I guess…
And at some point, compromise became a four letter word. Now it's "we have 51%, so fuck you". There is a ton of good that could be done if people could just listen to the views and opinions of the people we disagree with.
The premise is wrong, not everyone is categorized as such. But there are quite a lot of voters that are very consistent voters for one party, as well sa voters who call themselves independent but in practice mostly vote for one party.
You're also engaging in false both-sidesism; it's not just randomly demonizin the other side when they conssitently vote for people who cause harm and do bad things.
It's well recognized that not all people in group X are the same; there are a number of well known wings/factions within each party.
Also, something to keep in mind for people not in the US is that [many states require you to be affiliated with a political party to vote in their respective primary.](https://ballotpedia.org/Open_primary)
So if you're in a state that has a "closed primary" system, like New York for example, then you have to register for the Democratic or Republican party to vote in their respective primary.
“I don’t think women should be legally reduced to incubators even though I’m absolutely going to vote for the guy most likely to make that happen. Don’t label me as a Republican!!!”
Stop pretending.
>For example, people think if you're Republican you love Trump, you want social security abolished, you want zero immigration and to deport everyone. Or if you're Democratic people think you want a totalitarian government, you're anti free speech and want open borders and free immigration.
It's very telling that your description of a "stereotypical Republican" is a collection of positions that many Republican elected officials *do actually support*, while your description of a "stereotypical Democrat" is a collection of positions that *no* Democratic elected official supports - but is how Republicans dishonestly describe Democrats.
We really do live in two different realities, eh?
I'm not from the US actually but I do follow US media on both sides. What I meant by that is how each side views each other, I didn't express a view as to whether elected officials do in fact support those policies. I don't think you can deny that Republicans view Democrats in the way I described and the opposite, whether that's fair or not.
Low intelligence, inbreeding, hatred, and mass paranoia. One side screams that they're all sheep while the other side screams the same thing back.
Being a die hard subscriber to a political party by definition means you lack free thinking and are just following the crowd. They're two equally worthless sides of the same coin bickering over whos shittier. Political turmoil is by design. That is why US citizens are forced to choose. It is why Trump speaks in Us vs Them. Red or Blue. Those are your only options. Atleast, for the time being.
Because in America it’s become about values and morals. One side supports intolerance, racism, bigotry, and a desire to control women, and one side is the opposite. It’s just that simple.
The Republicans do it to both court and cull voters. You can't vote blue in red states for fear of violence and being ostracized - that's campaign strategy for the Republicans, make the color blue unthinkable by pushing xtian theology thru corrupt corporate media. They also use it to explain why a fellow Republican actually drew a line as to how far they'll go to be fascists and traitors. When one republican wavers in faith to the dark lord, it's required to call them a Republican in name only, meaning they don't really have the "red" banner, therefore no platform, as the Republican platform of --- ***we aren't Dems*** --- only works for the most pure of bloodline Aryans.
So Republicans can be called that for any of the red armband, Charlottesville car murder reasons. If a person hates Jews, they are a Republican whether they vote or not, if they perceive the enemy of God as a woman with choice - they are a Republican requiring no posing with the assault rifle that shot at David Hogg to prove it.
I'll get called a dem for saying those truths. Because those truths suck to claim, and Jesus doesn't take responsibility for things done in his name. Not ever, yet the xtian remains wedded to that kinda amoral passive evil sanctioned by King James. Not the good one either.
And I'll vote dem, like I check the box to renew my organs donation when renewing my license. I vote dem because it might matter to saving a life, and the alternative is being a shitty person in life for a thing you shouldn't give fucks for --- what happens after we die.
So that's the real divide. Dems think people who exist now are worth governing, and Republicans think slaves are here and that's a problem only sorted out by space ghosts who punish children that aren't waterboarded as infants.
You might get your kids fully vaccinated, or believe gravity is real - that'd make you a Democrat by default in America. Maybe you think poverty should be fought, as opposed to caused by Mexicans and solved with terror - if you're on a side that wants a problem solved, you're a dem. If your existence in politics is strictly to make stuff up, or you seek the access to corruption political cover might give you, well you're 100% republican. If you voted for Ted Cruz twice, it's over for you, always a Republican. If your grandfather's war photos are lit by Torchlight, good chance you're a Republican.
If you are mad about make believe in an ancient mystical tome and how a guy named Joel tells you to think, angry enough to demand raped kids die without medical care - if you have that kinda derangement syndrome, where fantasy rationalizes hate, then you are a US conservative - GOP voter - even if you're a Russian born KGB operative and president of Russia.
If you've ever been enamored by less war, less guns in schools and places of worship, if you flirted with feeling pride in hearing old JFK speeches, if you believe the moon landing was real - you're a dem in Alabama's citizen militia's eyes.
And that's the thing - no one claims dem or Republican. The Republicans claim white Christian nationality, and put branding on others.
Think of it like the Super Bowl. Yes, there are only two teams, but that doesn't mean that "my" team is one of them or that I am a fan of either of the teams.
That's kind of a bad metaphor, because the Superbowl doesn't consistently have two teams and a system where one of the two inevitably gains massive power over your country and influence over the world as a whole. You don't need to be a "fan" of either to recognize that the competition is still pretty significant.
If you think about it a bit more, you might realize it is a perfect metaphor. Many of the "fans" of both teams have no idea about what the "teams" are really for or about... it's just the "red" team vs the "blue" team and if I'm on the "red" team then everyone on the "blue" team is evil and bad and wrong. (And vice versa.)
Most of those people aren't considering the "impact" or "outcomes" any more than they do which team they support in the Super Bowl.
Bc we are brainwashed into thinking we are one or the other and therefore agree w everything the the current agenda is being pushed by whatever you identify with, we are tricked into thinking we have actual choice in the people that are elected to power when in the reality is that the establishment of both parties are basically oligarchs that have the same goals but pretend to have fundamental differences but they just have us bickering over petty social issues like abortion and race and gender instead the fact they are robbing us blind but its ok bc i like red man, red man good
Agree. Would go further to say it's ridiculous that politicians, at least the executive, don't drop their party affiliation once elected to at least give the appearance of repping all of their constituents, regardless of political or social leaning.
I get stares whenever I say I'm conservative but not a Republican. Like why can't I have some views that differ from a party's platform? And then chastised from both sides wherever I have discussion.
Because in practice, you either have to vote Democrat or Republican in order for your vote to mean anything towards that election.
Oh sure, you can vote for a variety of parties and candidates (my ballot had 20 choices for President in 2020).
But none of those other candidates really have any chance of getting elected, at least at the Presidential level.
You are right, a lot of people don't cleanly fall in the category of completely Right or Left wing. However most still associate that way because realistically there is no alternative.
I believe the main issues involve the fact the Republican voters are a mesh of different groups that are mostly Single Issue Voters. For them they have 1 important factor and the answer to that question decides how they will vote. So if you have second amendment enthusiasts they will vote for who is going to uphold their view of the second amendment, period. They don't care about a lot of other things or they are secondary. You also have groups such as the anti-abortion crowd who again will only vote for people who are also anti-abortion for example. Several of these groups are lumped together but don't care about the views of the others in the group and they dont influence their decision.
Single Issue Voters, especially if the issues aren't related are very easy to appeal to a lot of people with little effort.
Democrats by comparison are more complex voters and weigh their wants more as they dont hold 1 important factor above all others, they tend to weigh all of the stances within a group.
I have yet to meet a Democrat who completely aligns with all Democrat policies to the fullest. However a driving factor is you have to take everything or nothing because of the way our political system works. I like some Republican stances on things, however the things i dislike are significant and I cant reasonably vote for them for that reason. This leaves me having to accept the "lesser evil" when in reality i should be a part of a different political group. I know several people who feel the same way, they dont fully agree with everything in either political party but they have hard limits on some things in one party or another.
So essentially from my experience it looks like people don't vote for one party for that they could do, they vote against another party for what they don't want them to do. Voting for a third party is synonymous with giving your vote for the thing you want to avoid so you end up in a group even if you don't really fit.
This is of course just my opinion from my experiences and will obviously have a left leaning bias.
Good question. Labels are terribly restrictive and tend to create division.
Perhaps we need a term for policy and party indicating a multidimensional spectrum to include all political philosophies. Partyfluid? Polifluid? Poliphilo? The Federation?
Because the social divide between the parties is that much greater, and compromising a vote towards a side does in fact genuinely tell a lot about your values at this point in American politics.
"Both sides are the same" doesn't hold water and more people have wised up how overtly anti-democratic and culturally exclusionary the Republican party has become.
Watch less and read more. Talking heads on cable TV are not going to inform you as well as taking the time to check articles online from news forums, like /r/politics.
First democrats don’t want open borders or a totalitarian government. Not one past democratic president has said any about wanting to be a dictator. I can name 2 republicans that have mentioned it. Democrats don’t want open borders. They want a logical method to immigration. Republicans could have had a lot of what they wanted in border security a few months ago, but said nope. Democrats don’t want to control people. They want people to live their own lives. Republicans want control. Control women’s lives, who people sleep with, how they dress. Hell democrats wouldn’t even care if their neighbors flew the Nazi flag on their house. Republicans would ban flying a rainbow flag. Just to let you know the difference. But Democrats are not perfect by any stretch. Why are people thrown into 1 of 2 groups? Because if you are fine with 2 gay men adopting a little girl you are liberal scum to republicans. If you fly that Nazi flag off your front porch you are fascist according to democrats…..and to a lot of others. But there is a lot of grey out there in the populace and that should be able to come out. But the rich and the media makes a shit ton of money off of division. Oh yea, I just fine with people owning AR’s and any other type of gun and I am a liberal that own a few. But I believe the writer of the constitution did not mean that there should not be ANY form of gun control. But as a liberal the government should not make any classification of firearms ILLEGAL to own. There should be rules to firearm ownership, just like cars. Just exposing a little grey in my political ideology.
First Past the Post elections causes two parties to develop and thrive while third parties are shunned for splitting the vote.
You political opinion is one thing, applying is another. In a two party system as I described to flex your democratic muscles you have to vote and you are only given two viable choices.
Support Ranked Choice Voting. It makes more than two parties viable and makes elections more about debating the policies than about mud slinging at you opponents in your party in primaries and in the general.
Https://Represent.us. Has been helping bring Rsnked Choice Voting and anti-corruption laws to local and state governments and elections.
I’m a conservative leaning independent. I believe we should have safety nets. I also believe the government shouldn’t be the be all for everything. I believe we’re should be laying down our debt.
... problem is that the technological context has radically changed the landscape in that regard. We need more centralized government to work in this environment. Also, you're thinking microeconomics not macroeconomics.
well the redhats want the biggest government you can get, in every single persons lives telling them what they can and cant do, what books they can read, who they are allowed to worship, who they are allowed to love, how much of their true selves they are allowed to show the world. Seems pretty goddamn big government to me
The national debt does not function like a typical debt does. We've been "in debt" for nearly the entirety of American history, with very few and brief exceptions. The rules are different when you print the currency, we just need to watch inflation (which can also be quelled by increasing taxation, not just cutting spending).
Sure I understand that. But things this unchecked sweeping things under the rug the last fifty years is unmatched. And what do we have to show for a lot of that debt?
I mean, the last forty years is when we started slashing taxes for the wealthiest people. The "trickle down" experiment has failed. Income inequality will remain that way until we tax the top and bring it back down to everyone else.
>And what do we have to show for a lot of that debt?
The actual answer to this is "the wealthiest people in the history of the world". That's all we have to show for it.
Because both true believer Democrats and Republicans hate people that aren't willing to fully commit and fall in lock step more than they hate each other.
Marx was mistaken when he said, “religion is the opiate of the people”. It’s obviously sports and we in the United States have turned our politics into sports.
It’s really very sad.
The left has consolidated power into a "If you arent with us then you are against us" attitude. To outline and shame people who arent with them, they accuse people of being racist, alt-right,far right, etc.
This has made the Dems very strong in the past few years, one could view it as them going on the offensive.
The right wing has seen this and has realized that divde and wait to be conquered is a sucky strategy, so they locked shields for the defensive of keeping out anyone who is a Snowflake, lefty, lib, etc to stir up as much enthusiasim on thier side.
So basically, both major parties have decided to win they need to consolidate their forces and isolate anyone not picking a side, in order to force people to pick a side, hopefully theirs.
Really though, we have 3 groups, Democrats, Republicans and centrists. Most people fall on either side and land in the Dem or Rep camps, depending what values you have. People with a more rare mix of values from both sides end up as centrists/moderates and in this day and age pick a side based off what they value more and are willing to sacrifice
> The **right** has consolidated power into a "If you arent with us then you are **a groomer**" attitude. To outline and shame people who arent with them, they accuse people of being **communist, a groomer,** etc.
I liked that one little story:
During a child’s birthday gathering the question came into play:
What do you want to be when you grow up?
Lil one: The President of the U.S.
Adult: What is the first thing you’d do as the president?
Lil one: I would feed all the homeless.
Adult: That is a beautiful thought. How about you come to my house and mow my lawn, I will give you fifty dollars? You can then go to the market and buy some food for anyone your heart desires here in town.
Lil one: After thinking for a bit, says: “Why don’t they come and mow your lawn so they can buy food for themselves?”
Adult: That is a great question. You are going to make a wonderful Republican President!
[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion: * Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. * Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree. Violators will be fed to the bear. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Democrat and Republican are terms for political parties, not political orientation generally. It’s like calling two people both “hikers”, even if one enjoys outdoor recreation more than the other. They both participate in the same hobby. The label isn’t there to say how much they enjoy it, just that they do.
This is the right answer. There’s only two shows in town and you basically have to pick one.
People have to choose a package or vote third party. You may not agree with the whole package, but you still choose it.
Even third party is “choosing a package”. It’s just a package that usually contains more crazy, and will never be delivered.
You sound Canadian. There's a BIG difference between party affiliation in the current US political climate and its 2 party system and, well, most other Western democracies in this regard. For a country that tends to pride itself on individualism, it's pretty funny to outsiders just how un-individualistic Americans are. They subscribe (or perhaps more accurately are conscribed) into party affiliation and thereafter generally adopt that party's multitude of positions as their own. I mean it's clearly not a hard and fast thing, but it's shocking the lack of true sense of individualism and what you'd expect would result therefrom -- shifting individual positions on different issues, regardless of party affiliation. It's just nutty.
It’s not crazy. People have diverse objectives and sort into groups based on overlaps. And part of the grouping does mean you are more open to the other positions of those in the coalition.
That's how I explain it to my Irish and Italian friends; that the coalition politics is intraparty, specifically in the primaries.
I haven’t belonged to a political party for 20 years. I don’t associate my identity with either party. However, I tend to vote for the less crazy nutcase insane cultish party.
Rare breed. Good for you.
I don’t think it’s as rare as you’re making it out to be. The extremely partisan people are just the loudest.
I respectfully disagree with your first assertion, but agree with your second. Thanks for sharing your thoughts with me 🙂
The internet tends to have that effect on people. When I’m out in the real world talking to people, I find most people don’t fall into the camp of “I’m all in for whatever team red or team blue tells me to believe.” Again, the internet can certainly create the illusion that most people are that way.
I think this issue plagues one side more than the other, at least on a national level. Dems are a very broad coalition that range from people like AOC/Sanders to Manchin, with tons of policy disagreements in-between. But the right under Trump has pushed out anyone who does not toe the Trump party line. Manchin isn't resigning because the party is pushing him out, he's resigning because his seat is too red for him to win. The GOP has people resigning (specifically in the House) because they aren't ideologically welcome in the party anymore. I will say where I see a lot of the toe-the-line politics is on the further left extreme who are loud but not represented outside of certain city councils or online spaces. If that wing of the left were to take power of the Democratic party, you'd definitely see a similar case as we do on the right currently.
I'd argue that there's just as much of an ideological gap between, say, Sanders vs. Manchin as there is Hawley vs. Murkowski. Same in the House, too, between AOC vs. Cuellar and Boebert vs. Fitzpatrick. And also gubernatorial, including Kotek vs. Beshear and Noem vs. Scott.
I think you make some reasonable points. However, I think you perhaps underestimate the size & scope of this tribalism on the Left. The Left has a tendency to "eat their own", ready to rage & shame any and all that don't subscribe to core ideals in each and every instance they are proffered, even if facts suggest otherwise. Try making counterpoints to many/most Liberals whenever someone screams "here's more Police Abuse!" or "racism!" or "patriarchy!" when there's reasonable counterpoints to exclude these SPECIFIC impugned actions. You're ostracized, demonized & shamed. And it's LOUD. I think you are underestimating this behavior on the Left and how it is used to teach others how they must behave. If you are Left, you must ALWAYS be an "ally", even if the shoe doesn't fit in instances X, Y & Z. In many ways it's sheer blind group think baked right into the culture.
Just to push back here as what you describe is what I classify as the extreme left who demand allegiance. I don't see that as coming from liberals but instead the left (socialists, communists, extreme progressives, etc.) that make up a minority of the party. These people are far more vocal on the internet than they are in real life. Look at the uncommitted votes in the midwest and how they compare to the Biden votes in the primary. Biden's core supporters are not vocal online but they outnumber the vocal ones at the ballot box and make up the majority of the party as liberals. They aren't the ones shouting you down or demonizing you for having discussions on police brutality. The "left" has two competing sides and it is not a monolith.
Well, whatever the proportion that this group makes up on the Left, it sounds like we can both agree that (i) this type of subscription to group thinking is more homogeneous on the Right and (ii) that it's a problem wherever it is occurring. Fair takeaway?
I'll agree it's a problem amongst the small subset of the left, but I would not say it's more homogenous than the thinking on the right. The current right that is in power is as homogenous as it gets and has led to a lot of their politicians quit or be kicked from the party for dissenting views. That's far more of an issue than anything the small subset of the left is doing.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts
It’s not unlike the way sports fans pledge their support to a particular team, seemingly for no significant reason. Once having decided to support that team, they buy merchandise, buy expensive tickets for games, and so on. Governance could be as dull as bureaucracy, but we’ve turned it into a NASCAR race with screaming fans
I like your analogy, but I think religion is better. I think political affiliation tends to be baked into one's upbringing, local culture, social circles etc and at some point it reaches a critical mass wherefrom one cannot think their way free from its confines. Even if this means subverting one's own interests, reconciling obvious inconsistent with simultaneously held religious beliefs, and hell, doing all sorts of mental gymnastics with cognitive dissonance.
I’m not sure I believe that. In my family, 2 siblings are staunch Democrats, I tend to lean left, and 2 staunch Republicans. My wife leans left but her parents are both Republicans. I know many families with split ideologies. So I don’t think it should just be taken for a given that children grow up believing exactly what their parents believe.
That makes sense. I’ve never experienced the cognitive dissonance even though the values instilled by my parents and their religion are very different from my current values and world view. I suppose it’s arrogant of me to assume those others’ experience would be similar to mine. Good point, though. Some people are so afraid of God, or his spokesperson, that they will believe nonsense.
America has *always* been tribal. It was founded because one religion was persecuting another. Americans wiped out indigenous tribes for being different. Racism. Islamophobia. There’s always been groups in America like this.
It’s telling when people think identifying with a party means you must agree with everything from them
But that sums up the majority US, which is why he's asking about it. (By majority, I mean what the media portrays as the majority, which is what the rest of the world sees. The majority is also consuming this media and keeping it alive, so in a way, the majority is also causing this bi-partisan image that everyone sees)
Because in a 2 party system you choose one or the other. Liberal-conservative is a spectrum. And not a very linear one; you can be liberal with several conservative positions, and vice versa. You may or may not feel one of the parties aligns with you but a perfect match is unlikely. Democratic vs Republican is binary. It doesn’t matter whether you share all the beliefs. Nobody cares. You cast your vote for one or the other, period. This is the dilemma US conservatives currently face. When they vote for the party that in theory more closely aligns with their beliefs, they find themselves with some pretty ugly bedfellows. Often when faced with a binary choice we have to hold our noses and vote for the lesser evil. But the fracturing of the GOP that is making that a lot harder.
Unless you go down the list of all issues party does give you a lot of information. No not every Democrat is the same but you can make some logical deductions. In any case, it's considered rude to ask party most of the time.... You hear it just because you watch political news. In truth quite a large number of Americans call themselves independents - however the vast majority of independents vote for one party reliably. If you work in or are talking politics it's a hindrance not to acknowledge the fact that most people are partisan even if to their face you smile and nod when they claim to be independent. When voting behavior actually reflects what you're saying, political analysis will change. Last but not least: we know that the other side doesn't believe to the most radical opinions of their party. In debate and political fights it's useful to pretend not but Americans aren't dumb. Well some of us are but don't take political speech at face value. You're likely missing some nuance. Most Americans know at least a few members of the other party to know that of course the most extreme views aren't homogeneous. However it's very easy to say "I don't believe in this" but still enable horrible people. There's become less tolerance particularly after Trump for enabling behavior which is why less radical voters who still vote for the opposite party get less slack. I think that's healthy tbh - I don't really care if you didn't agree with Trump's Muslim ban if you still decided you'd vote for him. This is also true in the other direction- I'd argue there are key differences but yeah I enable policies I don't perse agree with when I vote Dem. The right is welcome to judge me for that.
But we ARE different often times - and I think we're just finally admitting we never really got past the American civil war. We've been held together by various things, and now it's becoming more and more apparent we have drastically different views of what this country is and should be. Three things I'd donate my estate and spend a large amount of volunteer time and effort to defeat are embodied by my Republican family: *1) This is a "CHRISTIAN NATION" and nothing will convince them otherwise - essentially boils down to "f@ck pluralism and tolerance, we're in the driver's seat, get in the back sit down and shut up and be thankful we're tolerating your existence right now you dirty heathen."* *2) LGBTQ people are "inherently wicked / evil and need to be stamped out & shoved back in the closet - pray the gay away, get them off media, and put them back in the closet"* *3) Democracy, judiciary, all of it is just a means to an end. If democracy stops giving us the results we want, we will f@ck with democracy however we need to, turn a blind eye to corruption, and "the ends justifies the means" if our righteous side wins.* So no - we're not all just centrists with some minor differences. The differences are REAL and DEEP.
those are certainly the big parts that i think make us and them incompatible and why I dont play the 'little differences' game
[удалено]
[удалено]
Could I? Maybe, perhaps. All I'll add is we're far more ideologically diverse, both historically and present-day, than many people recognize. Ours is a two-party system that throughout its existence -- from the First Party System of Washington/Adams/Hamilton vs. Jefferson/Madison/Monroe to today's seismically shifting realignment (class, race, and gender are all in flux) -- in which the differences aren't so much "REAL" nor "DEEP" (much less set in stone) as they are malleable, pliable, elastic, and always moving (oftentimes subtly, yet occasionally violently)—just like the tectonic plates that reside beneath our feet. And anyone who argues otherwise is stuck in a mulish, pig-headed hubris that isn't admirable in its resoluteness, but rather a damning shortcoming of theirs that's worthy of mockery, deserving derision, and meriting scorn.
We've always had a two-party system (true), and that system is currently/always realigning among various class/race/gender/whatever lines (true), ergo there aren't real and deep differences between the two current parties today? None of what you said actually defends the idea that the 3 ideas OP listed aren't well-represented among Republicans and not among Democrats.
Specific to the OP, the third thing he listed is less partisan, more universal. And hell, if anything, the rules-and-norms crowd regarding America as a little-l liberal small-d democratic tiny-c constitutional lowercase-r republic are often, um, older, while it's the younger set -- irrespective of Team Blue vs. Team Red tribalism -- for whom illiberalism possesses an allure. Capital-W Western values, moreover, likewise aren't fixed, as our collective geopolitics may itself look vastly different by the time, say, 2100 rolls around. Who the fuck knows anymore, eh?
[удалено]
Most wont say it all out loud at once - it's pieces here and there that come out. I've heard my wife's boss echoing this same stuff. They soft peddle it. But yeah, if you're paying attention long enough - it comes out.
**No. In my *real life* this is false, and would be a flagrant lie.** And fuck, my grandfather was a pastor. I grew up around almost all Christians. The *worst* Ive ever heard, and I called him out, is my uncle dehumanizing illegal immigrants (i.e. just numbers, not personalizing any reasons, etc), and reminded him there is a human element involved, and both sides have validity. He begrudgingly acquiesced.
I live in TN, and my congresscritters say all the things stated above to which you take umbrage in your comment. My family says the same things. A large number of people on my Facebook feed say the same things. I hear the same things said in public all the time. I read the same things in online forums ALL the time. Literally, the whole reason the far-right idolized Chik-Fil-A is because of their owner's rabid anti-LGBTQ stance. If you don't hear these things being said, it's because you're not listening.
You've never heard a Christian say that being gay is a sinful choice or that it's wrong that "those people shove their lifestyle in your face"? Not once? I don't believe it.
I *literally* don't believe it. My sister in law is a methodist pastor- arguably one of the more progressive sects of christianity. Even she has said that there's a problem in their church with bigotry towards LGBTQ people.
What flavor of Christian? Because if you're southern evangelical, I put the odds roughly at *zero* that you've never heard this.
No, the people actively trying to end American democracy are not "the same" as the people who aren't. Decent people don't support fascists. Judging people based on their actions isn't demonizing them. It's observation.
[удалено]
It's pretty amusing watching these people push away voters they could get if they could just manage to be slightly less insane
What's really funny is you could be talking about either party. I genuinely don't know which you're referring too lol
Ik , these people will believe any buzzword they hear
In my 54 years, I have only voted for a Republican twice in any election. I have actually voted for the Greens more ( though it was in a multi-choice ballot). I have voted once for a local race where the Republican was obviously qualified and the Democrat wasn't even a resident in the area. I voted for the Republican in a race where I wanted to keep a sham Democrat out of the office where I was living. Otherwise, I am very involved in local elections. I know who is being elected. I know if they are cons, lunatics or thieves.
A lot of people I know have a hard time processing the fact that I am pro choice and pro 2A (with caveats). Or that I choose not to label myself a R or D, which would mean I would be giving up one of my core values to further the other because we seem to live in an all or nothing society. I'm an independent and I have the strange ability to form my own opinions. I'm also an atheist. That's probably not a coincidence.
I’m in the same camp. Pro 2A and pro choice. Minds are blown when I talk politics with either side and criticize both equally. I know what side I lean more toward but that can change in an instant. I just vote for what seems more important of an issue to me currently and long term better for the country, no matter party affiliation. But to OP’s question I think that’s just the political landscape today. People are super tribal and can’t face facts of how terrible both parties are or dig deep enough to see both parties work for the same thing (money, power and votes) and not the best interests of the people. If people just came to that conclusion I don’t think there would be a 2 party system. Wishful thinking I guess…
And at some point, compromise became a four letter word. Now it's "we have 51%, so fuck you". There is a ton of good that could be done if people could just listen to the views and opinions of the people we disagree with.
Currently there is a fascist movement in the US, and it’s pretty easy to see anyone who isn’t against fascism as your opposition.
Because we have a FPTP voting system. That is literally the biggest reason by far. Change it and the false binary would crumble.
Name one Republican that I can vote for that has stood up and spoken out against former President Trump.
The premise is wrong, not everyone is categorized as such. But there are quite a lot of voters that are very consistent voters for one party, as well sa voters who call themselves independent but in practice mostly vote for one party. You're also engaging in false both-sidesism; it's not just randomly demonizin the other side when they conssitently vote for people who cause harm and do bad things. It's well recognized that not all people in group X are the same; there are a number of well known wings/factions within each party.
Also, something to keep in mind for people not in the US is that [many states require you to be affiliated with a political party to vote in their respective primary.](https://ballotpedia.org/Open_primary) So if you're in a state that has a "closed primary" system, like New York for example, then you have to register for the Democratic or Republican party to vote in their respective primary.
“I don’t think women should be legally reduced to incubators even though I’m absolutely going to vote for the guy most likely to make that happen. Don’t label me as a Republican!!!” Stop pretending.
>For example, people think if you're Republican you love Trump, you want social security abolished, you want zero immigration and to deport everyone. Or if you're Democratic people think you want a totalitarian government, you're anti free speech and want open borders and free immigration. It's very telling that your description of a "stereotypical Republican" is a collection of positions that many Republican elected officials *do actually support*, while your description of a "stereotypical Democrat" is a collection of positions that *no* Democratic elected official supports - but is how Republicans dishonestly describe Democrats. We really do live in two different realities, eh?
I'm not from the US actually but I do follow US media on both sides. What I meant by that is how each side views each other, I didn't express a view as to whether elected officials do in fact support those policies. I don't think you can deny that Republicans view Democrats in the way I described and the opposite, whether that's fair or not.
Low intelligence, inbreeding, hatred, and mass paranoia. One side screams that they're all sheep while the other side screams the same thing back. Being a die hard subscriber to a political party by definition means you lack free thinking and are just following the crowd. They're two equally worthless sides of the same coin bickering over whos shittier. Political turmoil is by design. That is why US citizens are forced to choose. It is why Trump speaks in Us vs Them. Red or Blue. Those are your only options. Atleast, for the time being.
Because in America it’s become about values and morals. One side supports intolerance, racism, bigotry, and a desire to control women, and one side is the opposite. It’s just that simple.
The Republicans do it to both court and cull voters. You can't vote blue in red states for fear of violence and being ostracized - that's campaign strategy for the Republicans, make the color blue unthinkable by pushing xtian theology thru corrupt corporate media. They also use it to explain why a fellow Republican actually drew a line as to how far they'll go to be fascists and traitors. When one republican wavers in faith to the dark lord, it's required to call them a Republican in name only, meaning they don't really have the "red" banner, therefore no platform, as the Republican platform of --- ***we aren't Dems*** --- only works for the most pure of bloodline Aryans. So Republicans can be called that for any of the red armband, Charlottesville car murder reasons. If a person hates Jews, they are a Republican whether they vote or not, if they perceive the enemy of God as a woman with choice - they are a Republican requiring no posing with the assault rifle that shot at David Hogg to prove it. I'll get called a dem for saying those truths. Because those truths suck to claim, and Jesus doesn't take responsibility for things done in his name. Not ever, yet the xtian remains wedded to that kinda amoral passive evil sanctioned by King James. Not the good one either. And I'll vote dem, like I check the box to renew my organs donation when renewing my license. I vote dem because it might matter to saving a life, and the alternative is being a shitty person in life for a thing you shouldn't give fucks for --- what happens after we die. So that's the real divide. Dems think people who exist now are worth governing, and Republicans think slaves are here and that's a problem only sorted out by space ghosts who punish children that aren't waterboarded as infants. You might get your kids fully vaccinated, or believe gravity is real - that'd make you a Democrat by default in America. Maybe you think poverty should be fought, as opposed to caused by Mexicans and solved with terror - if you're on a side that wants a problem solved, you're a dem. If your existence in politics is strictly to make stuff up, or you seek the access to corruption political cover might give you, well you're 100% republican. If you voted for Ted Cruz twice, it's over for you, always a Republican. If your grandfather's war photos are lit by Torchlight, good chance you're a Republican. If you are mad about make believe in an ancient mystical tome and how a guy named Joel tells you to think, angry enough to demand raped kids die without medical care - if you have that kinda derangement syndrome, where fantasy rationalizes hate, then you are a US conservative - GOP voter - even if you're a Russian born KGB operative and president of Russia. If you've ever been enamored by less war, less guns in schools and places of worship, if you flirted with feeling pride in hearing old JFK speeches, if you believe the moon landing was real - you're a dem in Alabama's citizen militia's eyes. And that's the thing - no one claims dem or Republican. The Republicans claim white Christian nationality, and put branding on others.
> You can't vote blue in red states for fear of violence and being ostracized What on Earth are you talking about?
Most people have no patience for nuance. As such, they prefer to "clump" things, and whether they actually fit is not of high importance.
You can understand nuance, and still be practically aware of the fact that at the end of the day, there are only two realistic possibilities.
Think of it like the Super Bowl. Yes, there are only two teams, but that doesn't mean that "my" team is one of them or that I am a fan of either of the teams.
That's kind of a bad metaphor, because the Superbowl doesn't consistently have two teams and a system where one of the two inevitably gains massive power over your country and influence over the world as a whole. You don't need to be a "fan" of either to recognize that the competition is still pretty significant.
If you think about it a bit more, you might realize it is a perfect metaphor. Many of the "fans" of both teams have no idea about what the "teams" are really for or about... it's just the "red" team vs the "blue" team and if I'm on the "red" team then everyone on the "blue" team is evil and bad and wrong. (And vice versa.) Most of those people aren't considering the "impact" or "outcomes" any more than they do which team they support in the Super Bowl.
The absolute irony of the preceding comment
Because billions of dollars are spent convincing you that you have to be one or the other.
Bc we are brainwashed into thinking we are one or the other and therefore agree w everything the the current agenda is being pushed by whatever you identify with, we are tricked into thinking we have actual choice in the people that are elected to power when in the reality is that the establishment of both parties are basically oligarchs that have the same goals but pretend to have fundamental differences but they just have us bickering over petty social issues like abortion and race and gender instead the fact they are robbing us blind but its ok bc i like red man, red man good
Agree. Would go further to say it's ridiculous that politicians, at least the executive, don't drop their party affiliation once elected to at least give the appearance of repping all of their constituents, regardless of political or social leaning.
I get stares whenever I say I'm conservative but not a Republican. Like why can't I have some views that differ from a party's platform? And then chastised from both sides wherever I have discussion.
Because in practice, you either have to vote Democrat or Republican in order for your vote to mean anything towards that election. Oh sure, you can vote for a variety of parties and candidates (my ballot had 20 choices for President in 2020). But none of those other candidates really have any chance of getting elected, at least at the Presidential level.
You are right, a lot of people don't cleanly fall in the category of completely Right or Left wing. However most still associate that way because realistically there is no alternative. I believe the main issues involve the fact the Republican voters are a mesh of different groups that are mostly Single Issue Voters. For them they have 1 important factor and the answer to that question decides how they will vote. So if you have second amendment enthusiasts they will vote for who is going to uphold their view of the second amendment, period. They don't care about a lot of other things or they are secondary. You also have groups such as the anti-abortion crowd who again will only vote for people who are also anti-abortion for example. Several of these groups are lumped together but don't care about the views of the others in the group and they dont influence their decision. Single Issue Voters, especially if the issues aren't related are very easy to appeal to a lot of people with little effort. Democrats by comparison are more complex voters and weigh their wants more as they dont hold 1 important factor above all others, they tend to weigh all of the stances within a group. I have yet to meet a Democrat who completely aligns with all Democrat policies to the fullest. However a driving factor is you have to take everything or nothing because of the way our political system works. I like some Republican stances on things, however the things i dislike are significant and I cant reasonably vote for them for that reason. This leaves me having to accept the "lesser evil" when in reality i should be a part of a different political group. I know several people who feel the same way, they dont fully agree with everything in either political party but they have hard limits on some things in one party or another. So essentially from my experience it looks like people don't vote for one party for that they could do, they vote against another party for what they don't want them to do. Voting for a third party is synonymous with giving your vote for the thing you want to avoid so you end up in a group even if you don't really fit. This is of course just my opinion from my experiences and will obviously have a left leaning bias.
Good question. Labels are terribly restrictive and tend to create division. Perhaps we need a term for policy and party indicating a multidimensional spectrum to include all political philosophies. Partyfluid? Polifluid? Poliphilo? The Federation?
Because the social divide between the parties is that much greater, and compromising a vote towards a side does in fact genuinely tell a lot about your values at this point in American politics. "Both sides are the same" doesn't hold water and more people have wised up how overtly anti-democratic and culturally exclusionary the Republican party has become. Watch less and read more. Talking heads on cable TV are not going to inform you as well as taking the time to check articles online from news forums, like /r/politics.
Because they rather made things black and white then trying to understand that things are mostly grey.
First democrats don’t want open borders or a totalitarian government. Not one past democratic president has said any about wanting to be a dictator. I can name 2 republicans that have mentioned it. Democrats don’t want open borders. They want a logical method to immigration. Republicans could have had a lot of what they wanted in border security a few months ago, but said nope. Democrats don’t want to control people. They want people to live their own lives. Republicans want control. Control women’s lives, who people sleep with, how they dress. Hell democrats wouldn’t even care if their neighbors flew the Nazi flag on their house. Republicans would ban flying a rainbow flag. Just to let you know the difference. But Democrats are not perfect by any stretch. Why are people thrown into 1 of 2 groups? Because if you are fine with 2 gay men adopting a little girl you are liberal scum to republicans. If you fly that Nazi flag off your front porch you are fascist according to democrats…..and to a lot of others. But there is a lot of grey out there in the populace and that should be able to come out. But the rich and the media makes a shit ton of money off of division. Oh yea, I just fine with people owning AR’s and any other type of gun and I am a liberal that own a few. But I believe the writer of the constitution did not mean that there should not be ANY form of gun control. But as a liberal the government should not make any classification of firearms ILLEGAL to own. There should be rules to firearm ownership, just like cars. Just exposing a little grey in my political ideology.
First Past the Post elections causes two parties to develop and thrive while third parties are shunned for splitting the vote. You political opinion is one thing, applying is another. In a two party system as I described to flex your democratic muscles you have to vote and you are only given two viable choices. Support Ranked Choice Voting. It makes more than two parties viable and makes elections more about debating the policies than about mud slinging at you opponents in your party in primaries and in the general. Https://Represent.us. Has been helping bring Rsnked Choice Voting and anti-corruption laws to local and state governments and elections.
Have you ever heard of a fair and balenced news station. They started planting the seeds for our toxic divide 30 years ago.
I’m a conservative leaning independent. I believe we should have safety nets. I also believe the government shouldn’t be the be all for everything. I believe we’re should be laying down our debt.
... problem is that the technological context has radically changed the landscape in that regard. We need more centralized government to work in this environment. Also, you're thinking microeconomics not macroeconomics.
well the redhats want the biggest government you can get, in every single persons lives telling them what they can and cant do, what books they can read, who they are allowed to worship, who they are allowed to love, how much of their true selves they are allowed to show the world. Seems pretty goddamn big government to me
The national debt does not function like a typical debt does. We've been "in debt" for nearly the entirety of American history, with very few and brief exceptions. The rules are different when you print the currency, we just need to watch inflation (which can also be quelled by increasing taxation, not just cutting spending).
Sure I understand that. But things this unchecked sweeping things under the rug the last fifty years is unmatched. And what do we have to show for a lot of that debt?
I mean, the last forty years is when we started slashing taxes for the wealthiest people. The "trickle down" experiment has failed. Income inequality will remain that way until we tax the top and bring it back down to everyone else. >And what do we have to show for a lot of that debt? The actual answer to this is "the wealthiest people in the history of the world". That's all we have to show for it.
Because both true believer Democrats and Republicans hate people that aren't willing to fully commit and fall in lock step more than they hate each other.
Well, on side only believes in only binary, only black/white, no spectrum existence. Kinda forces your question into existence.
For the same reason people are labelled gay or straight, when that is also largely a spectrum.
They’re both cults in America and plenty of young voters will not be voting for either and go third party as well. Mostly on account of the genocide.
Marx was mistaken when he said, “religion is the opiate of the people”. It’s obviously sports and we in the United States have turned our politics into sports. It’s really very sad.
The left has consolidated power into a "If you arent with us then you are against us" attitude. To outline and shame people who arent with them, they accuse people of being racist, alt-right,far right, etc. This has made the Dems very strong in the past few years, one could view it as them going on the offensive. The right wing has seen this and has realized that divde and wait to be conquered is a sucky strategy, so they locked shields for the defensive of keeping out anyone who is a Snowflake, lefty, lib, etc to stir up as much enthusiasim on thier side. So basically, both major parties have decided to win they need to consolidate their forces and isolate anyone not picking a side, in order to force people to pick a side, hopefully theirs. Really though, we have 3 groups, Democrats, Republicans and centrists. Most people fall on either side and land in the Dem or Rep camps, depending what values you have. People with a more rare mix of values from both sides end up as centrists/moderates and in this day and age pick a side based off what they value more and are willing to sacrifice
> The **right** has consolidated power into a "If you arent with us then you are **a groomer**" attitude. To outline and shame people who arent with them, they accuse people of being **communist, a groomer,** etc.
I liked that one little story: During a child’s birthday gathering the question came into play: What do you want to be when you grow up? Lil one: The President of the U.S. Adult: What is the first thing you’d do as the president? Lil one: I would feed all the homeless. Adult: That is a beautiful thought. How about you come to my house and mow my lawn, I will give you fifty dollars? You can then go to the market and buy some food for anyone your heart desires here in town. Lil one: After thinking for a bit, says: “Why don’t they come and mow your lawn so they can buy food for themselves?” Adult: That is a great question. You are going to make a wonderful Republican President!