How people view the "other" political party

[Liberty]

I just overheard my dad explain the democratic party to Surlethe.

According to him, the Democrats are the party of entitlement. To get votes, they need to make people dependent on their handouts. So, they became the party that took from some and gave to others, thus gaining the votes of the latter. This worked fine with social security and medicare until enough time went by that the people on social security and medicare feel that they've paid into it, so they deserve it, so they're no longer dependent on the Demorcatic party because they see it as something they deserve, not a handout from the Democratic Party. So, that's why Democrats are doing health care. They've lost their guaranteed vote base and they need to get another one. So with health care they can take from some and give to a new group, thus making a new group of voters dependent on them.

What bothers me most about this interpertation of the Democratic Party (besides that it's wrong) is that it means the party has no actual ideology or beliefs. Instead, the whole thing is just a way to scam people and get votes. It's not about helping the elderly, or the poor, or trying to create a system of social security to protect people - it's about taking from some to give to others to get votes.

I first got mad and then I decided to turn my thought process to something more productive. I am wondering, does everyone see the other party as only motivated by a desire to get votes and not by actual ideological convictions? For instance, do Democrats see themselves as motivated by a desire to help the poor and bring about social equality and see the Republicans as people kissing the feet of big business to make a buck while Republicans see themselves as the party of freedom and libertarian economics as the best way to productivity and success while they see the Democrats as a party that wants to make the poor dependent on them just to get their votes?

This strikes me as incredibly counterproductive. It essentially demonizes the opposition. Do both sides actually do this, or am I imagining this?

[Simon_Jester]

I see the Republicans as a large mass of people who sincerely believe certain things, led by a group who may or may not believe them... but certainly have a vested interest in making sure others do. Sarah Palin might well believe the things that come out of her mouth; she is no more or less damned by believing her own words than she would be by being a manipulator.

But I think you've put your finger on a major problem, yes. The image of politicians as cynical manipulators is quite common, but it's one that no one wants to apply to people they like. So it winds up sticking only to the opposition leaders, not the leaders of the groups one identifies with.

[Bottlestein]

It essentially demonizes the opposition. Do both sides actually do this, or am I imagining this?

Yes. You are a Historian - why is this shocking?

[Purple]

Well, I am not American and so I know next to nothing about your political system. But if I can provide some input about what I have experienced in my life.


Politics has not now and will newer have anything to do with ideology.

Democratic politics is all about who can manipulate the population best into getting their votes so that he can spend another term in office getting those big pay checks and maintaining the status quo. The only reason why political parties even have so called ideals and agendas is becouse it helps them maintain a steady number of core voters, poor saps that actually believe in all that junk.

Certainly, I will not deny that there are some members among each party leadership that truly want to do what is best for their country and people. But for each one of them (in my country there is in fact only one) there will be dozens of those that are just in it for the loot.

The closest analogy to a political party is a party of adventurers in D&D. Sure, they might slay the dragon, save the princes and end the blight. But they don't do it out of the goodness of their hearth. They do it for the loot.
The only difference is that politicians also do it to ensure that when the small kingdom of good people has another problem (with plenty of loot attached) they are the first who get called to clean it up.


Furthermore in the history of mankind, if we have learned anything, than it is that when democracy was about ideals it quickly turned into a dictatorship. Simply because multiple highly idealistic groups can not coexist with each other peacefully and be truly dedicated to their ideals at the same time.

I mean to give a blunt example. If you are a member of a sect that preaches kill the [Jew/Gay/pokemon playing child/insert group here] and at the same time live next door to one of the same group. Your options are either to actually kill him, quit the group or admit that you are a hypocrite.

In a democracy, you tend to have people that chose none of the above. They continue preaching that the other guys are evil but they keep sharing power with them. What does this tell you?



Note: The above post is not up for debate. It only represents the sum of my own personal observations of various governments around the world. As such, it is not argument by anything other than my own personal observations. Therefore, it can not betaken as anything but such as said by this declaimer.

[Temujin]

Well politicians being politicians, some degree of pandering for votes is going to happen, as is attacking and painting your opponent in a bad light, which can easily lead to demonizing. However, your mileage will very depending on the nature of the political party in question.

Many democrats certainly seem interested in social reform and equality, but a large number of them, including many who preach such reform, are also in the pocket of special interests; something that sadly is almost impossible to avoid in Washington if you want a long political career there. Many also still buy into the America is unique and special, and capitalism is great and the free market has to be allowed to flourish mentality; which along with their adherence to their corporate masters, sadly is counterproductive to many of their (collectively speaking) efforts at reform.

And to be fair, many on the Republican side do see themselves as the party of freedom and that their libertarian policies of small government are best for the nation (just had to endure a rant from Boss Teabag about that on Friday ). However, these so-called conservatives (in reality only socially) also have an idealized revisionist view of history and reality, and filter everything they are exposed to to fit that view point. They certainly don't see themselves as evil, however one could make the case that indirectly or passively they are evil in that their actions are motivated be greed and tribalism and the results from said actions have hurt and continue to hurt many people in this country and around the world; and no matter how much evidence you present to them of that fact, they will dismiss it, rationalize it away, or distort it so that they are ultimately right.

While I support the democrats and the political left in this country, there are many issues that I just do not and can not agree with them on. Some aspects of defense and foreign policy, as well as nuclear energy are at odds with what they often support. This is not to say that I agree with the right on these issues either though. For a time when I was young and politically naive, I took a centrist position between the two parties. I now realize the entire political spectrum of America is out of balance with the rest of the developed world, and thus have adjusted my views accordingly.

Oh, and the reason I have Communistical imagery in my avatar and sig is a sarcastic response to the Republican's/Libertarian's equation of anything socialist with communism. On the political spectrum, I tend to fall as a liberal socialist, but techno progressive might be a better descriptor.

[Liberty]

It essentially demonizes the opposition. Do both sides actually do this, or am I imagining this?

Yes. You are a Historian - why is this shocking?

It isn't, really. It's just that this example is so blunt - it's not, the other side is wrong, it's the other side doesn't even care about being right. I guess it was just kind of an "ahah!" moment. And it also made me personally determine to try to understand the other side on their own ground, rather than simply demonizing them.

[Samuel]

but a large number of them, including many who preach such reform, are also in the pocket of special interests;

Being a special interest isn't bad- what is bad is if your special interest only benefits by impoverishing others. For example people who wanted the government to build an interstate highway system would be a special interest, but overall it helped the country so it wouldn't be a bad thing.

Democratic politics is all about who can manipulate the population best into getting their votes so that he can spend another term in office getting those big pay checks and maintaining the status quo.

Most politicians are independently wealthy and many are lawyers who would earn even more in private practice. How much ideology matters varies depending on the time and party.

Certainly, I will not deny that there are some members among each party leadership that truly want to do what is best for their country and people.

I think almost all of them do. Unfortunately I also think many of them are idiots, assholes or nuts. While the representatives may tend to be smarter then the rest of the population, there is no guarentee they have the skills that would be optimal for governance.

The closest analogy to a political party is a party of adventurers in D&D. Sure, they might slay the dragon, save the princes and end the blight. But they don't do it out of the goodness of their hearth. They do it for the loot.

Lies! Blatant lies! We do it for the quest experience!

Furthermore in the history of mankind, if we have learned anything, than it is that when democracy was about ideals it quickly turned into a dictatorship. Simply because multiple highly idealistic groups can not coexist with each other peacefully and be truly dedicated to their ideals at the same time.

Only if the groups were completely unwilling to compromise. Idealistic groups that are willing to make concessions can coexist without turning into a dictatorship.

It's not about helping the elderly, or the poor, or trying to create a system of social security to protect people - it's about taking from some to give to others to get votes.

It is worth noting political machines worked like that back in the day. Your local party helped you out and in exchange you gave them votes.

[Temujin]

but a large number of them, including many who preach such reform, are also in the pocket of special interests;

Being a special interest isn't bad- what is bad is if your special interest only benefits by impoverishing others. For example people who wanted the government to build an interstate highway system would be a special interest, but overall it helped the country so it wouldn't be a bad thing.

True, that should really be phrased as "corporate special interests", since they're the ones usually referred to negatively as special interest groups, at least by people on my end of the political spectrum. Same goes for "corporate" lobbyists.

[Thanas]

Liberty, while I loath to invoke his name, I really would advise you to read Carl Schmitt's The Concept of the Political. It should answer your questions.

Even though I have to say that it is surprising to me that this revelation did not come sooner to you.