There is a little Republican in every Democrat, and there is a little Democrat in every Republican. I know this because I read blogs. I also have many friends who claim to be Democrats, but their views make me wonder why. "My family has always been Democratic, that's what we are," they say. It happens on the Republican side too. My parents didn't talk about politics at home because they were of opposite parties, but at family functions the sparks would fly! My father came from communist roots, while my mom from a very conservative evangelical background. My siblings and I were left to choose for ourselves, probably to our benefit. We have three Republicans and an Independent.There is so much that unites us here in the valley, yet everyday we tear each other up on blogs because of party affiliation. How is it that Charlie Dent is a good Congressman by the standards of most R's and D's, yet the D's always talk of how it would be better to have a Democrat hold the seat? Why does the mayor of a local borough badger my volunteers on election day to become Democrats? They are there for me and obviously believe in Republican principles, but somehow by simply switching parties they are alright. Why does Chris Casey's version of tax reform fly with D's, yet when I propose the very same thing as an R it's ridiculous?
The lines have become so blurred over recent years it's hard to identify all one's principles to a single party. For example, most comments promote liberty, love of family, God and country, disdain for political correctness and the desire to see the end of illegal immigration. The war in Iraq tears us apart the most, but I have to wonder if it were a D in office would the objections be the same? We all love our freedom, and we all say we support the troops, so why all the hatred?
What I'm getting at is politics is a game, and while games are fun they don't accomplish much. Maybe it's time to redefine the parties so the casual observer knows what he or she is voting for. In Europe they have many parties and they are titled for what they really are, Conservative, Socialist, Labor, etc. Republican and Democratic certainly mean things, but the meaning has evolved over the years and the two parties have become big tents of nothing real specific. Perhaps it's time to change Republican to Capitalist and Democratic to Socialist and have done with it, because in the big picture that's what the candidates on the national level are proposing. That's what will trickle down to the rest of us, so we may as well fight honestly.
14 comments:
Dawn --
Good post.
Bernie -
Kudos for running it.
Dawn,
Shame on you for proposing we call Dems socialists. Don Cunningham is a socialists? Tell that to the businesses in Bethlehem who came to his city because of his policies. Bill Clinton a socialist? Really? Did he not sign NAFTA?
Furthermore, you ask if the war in Iraq would cause the same issues if it were under a Dem? Remember the outcry of Republican when Clinton bombed in the former Yugoslavia? Better yet, remember Vietnam? I don't think LBJ got a pass for being a Dem.
I happen to agree with your post, however, the post only seems to reinforce exactly what I think it is that you are trying to get at: divisive politics. In this media age, generic and basic terms are thrown out there a lot to describe both parties, as assigned to them by partisan, agenda driven media. Is there a liberal media? Yes. Is the media liberal? No. It's going on all around, from all sides. Let's be honest about this, not infer other things.
Otherwise, you're right. There's no need for hate. Just for principle.
Dawn -
I like what you write. I don't have much to say about it.
In general, I just fear at this point in life that our country has fallen subject to too much corruption and conspiracy that it won't be able to bounce back for the positive.
But then again, I look at Vietnam as an example (even though it was before my time.) There were some positives after that, so I try and keep a positive attitude and believe that there is hope for our nation.
As for Republican or Democrat, it’s just an excuse to raise insane amounts of money that would better benefit the actual country, or another region less fortunate. Sounds like a Rendell* to me: Wasting money to elect someone to office to waste money.
( * - I’ve decided that Rendell is just another word for oxymoron, or just moron in general. Sam Bennett would be the mistress of this term!)
Interesting, but it is all in the eye of the beholder. I could look at Republican and say Corporate protectionism and Democrat as Social prgressive. I am sure many would disagree with that view. If Ms. B feels strongly in the idea that free capitalism is synonymous with social justice then I am sure she would agree with me that independents be allowed to vote in all elections including primaries. Rather then being forced to accept the candidates picked by the fringes of both parties.
Dawn, anytime you want to guest post on the LVPoliblog, drop me a line. I let everybody state their views.
I gotta say, I must be missing the message here. Lots of good rhetoric about getting along and people not being partisan by nature, but where is the substance. I've read it a few times and I simply am missing something. It's all very agreeable but it doesn't say anything (actually, it's quite clear that you learned a lot as a candidate, including that if you say something nicely and with appropriate symbolism, it doesn't matter what you say).
That said, your last paragraph about socialist and capitalist is the kind of crap you are railing against: division for the sake of political opportunity. Miller Park hit it on the head: call Don a socialist and you'll get laughed at. I'd prefer we used the label Cold-Hearted to describe the Republicans and Compassionate to describe Democrats, but like your labeling of the two parties as Capitalist and Socialist, it won't receive any kind of credit (as it shouldn't).
For the record, Chris Casey is crazy... and we love him for it.
Thank you, LVDem, for your kind words. I'm taking my meds, you know! I'm a "kindler, gentler," Casey now!
While there is nothing inherently wrong with a system with lots of political parties, I can think of three countries where the governments have this type of situation and you can make arguments pro and con based on your view of how well they work:
1) Italy – The Italian government is ineffectual. Once one party is finally able to build a coalition, some group gets unhappy and the thing falls apart. This is especially devastating during times of crisis.
2) France – The government works fairly well only because for the most part the majority parties are too large to really need the smaller ones very often. If the smaller parties have no real influence, what’s the point?
3) Israel – The government is usually made up of one of the two larger parties which must cater to one or more minority parties to put a government together. The super religious party is significant because they are large enough so that they are usually necessary to put a government together. However, they care only about ensuring that the government supports their position on the religious rules in the country. The end result is that the Israel government supports very strong religious rules that make our old “Blue Laws” which did such things as limit commercial activity on Sunday look pretty bland.
My bottom line is that while in Pennsylvania it looks like the two parties in many ways don’t look or act that much different. It’s more like once one party has staked out a position outside of motherhood and apple pie, the other party takes the other side so nothing gets done. I just don’t think a collection of minor parties would upset the trough in Harrisburg.
I'm not sure I like the idea of a kinder and gentler Chris Casey. I prefer the biting sarcasm and free expression of values to be honest. but if you feel that giving out hugs is the best way to win 'em over and you are happy with that, then by golly brother, I'm happy for you.
Dawn,
Thanks for coming "out"! I wish more would do so. Issue at hand is Yin & Yang. My opinion is only a D or an R can win elections for the most part! George Wallace once pointed out to all of us: "There isn't a dimes worth of difference" between the two. I agree and when folks register as an I, they wish all to know and/or "think" they are I from the rest of us. I truly believe we are all I's and vote for the person/ideas and never the Party, unless you're as stupid as the Joe Long's of the world. My definition of an R Party platform
is less govt and more individual freedom while D platform wants
govt to give free stuff to all of us from cradle to grave including
"illegal" immigrants, therefore just "buying" votes is their plan.
Further, most local D's handle themselves as R platform folks, is my opinion. I always vote for the person with the best ideas so we don't go the route of the Roman Empire but the more I learn, the more I worry. As an R, I supported and voted for D Rep. Brennan since I know him and we have helped each other &
friends with constituent services for years. No disrespect to Ms. Berrigan. larry@kisslinger.com
Someone needs a hug! I only bite the heads off high protein insects now. I haven't kicked a politician in over a month!
hugs to Casey as he seems most to need one! he should be eating bran flakes and taking politics 101 lessons. larry@kisslinger.com
I don't need hugs, I need ice cream! Moose tracks!
Thanks to everyone who took time to read and comment on my post.
I believe we spend way too much money on elections. While the 2 party system is where elections are won, as a whole we need to get past side r and side d and work for good government.
The terms socialist and capitalist were inserted on purpose to provoke thought, especially since that is where it appears the candidates(presidential) on the NATIONAL level are going, not the local officials. We need to pay more attention to what is being said, especially casual voters.
It's also my opinion that most voters in both parties are very much main stream and candidates are not chosen by the fringe in the primaries. I's voting in primaries would be fine if they were the only ones allowed to cross party lines.
Unfortunately it could also lead to mischief.
Thanks Chris for your offer to post at lvpoliblog. I may take you up on it.
Thanks to Bernie for sharing his blog today.
Dawn
Post a Comment