Republican vs Democrat: Which am I?
Thursday, September 23rd, 2004 05:49 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
basildestinyAs I was driving home from work today, the idea struck me to write this. It's quickly approaching November and I'm confused. Everyone is talking about their candidate and it's all confusing and conflicting information!! Someone help me! Here's a little Public Service Announcement to help.
Republicans. I've really only heard of two good reasons to vote Republican. 1) You are a true red capitalist. You don't care about anything more than the bottom dollar. 2) You don't like the federal government telling you what to do through laws, taxes, or federally funded programs.
Who would this benefit? Business people, defense attorneys, etc.
Democrats are going to be the liberals. They believe that the government should help support the people in attaining the goals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Laws should be specific, everyone should have health care, etc.
So according to this, most people are going to be Democrats. Why is that the majority party Republicans? Good question! A lot of it has to do with tradition and misconceptions. There's a long-held belief that Republicans are pro-religion because they are conservative and Democrats are anti-religion. This simply isn't true. Being conservative means that Republicans are less likely to change existing practices. Democrats are more "politically correct" as the term goes. They don't want to step on someone else's rights with their religion. They're just as religious as the Republicans, they're just going to side with equality over tradition. Another problem the Democrats face is the fact that it is such an umbrella party. They aren't bound together by tradition. They're bound together by equality for everyone. This means everyone is heard. So when it comes down to it, Democrats aren't very good at playing the defensive game. For example, you take Senator Kerry's senate record and Cheney says "Senator Kerry voted against the creation of more military weapons, arms, etc! He's anti-military!" In a debate, the question would go "Senator Kerry, why did you vote against that bill instead of supporting the military and authorizing the production of these weapons?" A typical Democrat will answer it this way "Well the same thing could be asked of you, Mr. Vice President. Why did you vote against that bill? I voted against because it was in front of the Senate in 1996 post Cold War. We had weapons stockpiled and no longer needed to have such a bolstered military program now that Russia wasn't our enemy." But when presented that way, people stop paying attention after Cheney asked the question. The best response would be to simply say "Well the same thing could be asked of you, Mr. Vice President. Why did you vote against that bill?" and throw the question back. And that's the problem with liberal thinking. Democrats are driven to give explanations and have a hard time agreeing on a response.
I think I understand. So if I believe the government should stay out of my business, I should vote Republican. That would be the logical conclusion. The problem is that President Bush's past four years in office have not really reflected the typical Republican belief. He put out the Patriot Act which allows the government to invade your privacy and he has sent the military all over the globe. But, you say, Iraq was a terrorist threat. President Bush believed what he said. Iraq did pose a threat; however, President Bush refused to convince the UN to join forces with the US. He continues to refuse to appologize to the Allies and continues to believe the United States can bring democracy to the Middle East regardless of the price. This is a noble cause, but it is secondary to the reason we went to the Middle East in the first place: To stop the terrorists who attacked on 9-11 who were lead by Osama bin Laden, not Saddam Hussein. There continue to be other threats of WMDs outside of the Middle East, but the US is incapable of responding to these threats with our current military force. We cannot wage war on terror, bring democracy to the Middle East, and police the world. Don't forget about war torn Africa, the kidnappings in South America, or the turmoil in Mexico. What will the US do about those conflicts?
Feel free to add things I may have left out.
~Bas/J Dawg
ETA: In case you were wondering and couldn't tell, I'm a staunch Democrat.
Republicans. I've really only heard of two good reasons to vote Republican. 1) You are a true red capitalist. You don't care about anything more than the bottom dollar. 2) You don't like the federal government telling you what to do through laws, taxes, or federally funded programs.
Who would this benefit? Business people, defense attorneys, etc.
Democrats are going to be the liberals. They believe that the government should help support the people in attaining the goals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Laws should be specific, everyone should have health care, etc.
So according to this, most people are going to be Democrats. Why is that the majority party Republicans? Good question! A lot of it has to do with tradition and misconceptions. There's a long-held belief that Republicans are pro-religion because they are conservative and Democrats are anti-religion. This simply isn't true. Being conservative means that Republicans are less likely to change existing practices. Democrats are more "politically correct" as the term goes. They don't want to step on someone else's rights with their religion. They're just as religious as the Republicans, they're just going to side with equality over tradition. Another problem the Democrats face is the fact that it is such an umbrella party. They aren't bound together by tradition. They're bound together by equality for everyone. This means everyone is heard. So when it comes down to it, Democrats aren't very good at playing the defensive game. For example, you take Senator Kerry's senate record and Cheney says "Senator Kerry voted against the creation of more military weapons, arms, etc! He's anti-military!" In a debate, the question would go "Senator Kerry, why did you vote against that bill instead of supporting the military and authorizing the production of these weapons?" A typical Democrat will answer it this way "Well the same thing could be asked of you, Mr. Vice President. Why did you vote against that bill? I voted against because it was in front of the Senate in 1996 post Cold War. We had weapons stockpiled and no longer needed to have such a bolstered military program now that Russia wasn't our enemy." But when presented that way, people stop paying attention after Cheney asked the question. The best response would be to simply say "Well the same thing could be asked of you, Mr. Vice President. Why did you vote against that bill?" and throw the question back. And that's the problem with liberal thinking. Democrats are driven to give explanations and have a hard time agreeing on a response.
I think I understand. So if I believe the government should stay out of my business, I should vote Republican. That would be the logical conclusion. The problem is that President Bush's past four years in office have not really reflected the typical Republican belief. He put out the Patriot Act which allows the government to invade your privacy and he has sent the military all over the globe. But, you say, Iraq was a terrorist threat. President Bush believed what he said. Iraq did pose a threat; however, President Bush refused to convince the UN to join forces with the US. He continues to refuse to appologize to the Allies and continues to believe the United States can bring democracy to the Middle East regardless of the price. This is a noble cause, but it is secondary to the reason we went to the Middle East in the first place: To stop the terrorists who attacked on 9-11 who were lead by Osama bin Laden, not Saddam Hussein. There continue to be other threats of WMDs outside of the Middle East, but the US is incapable of responding to these threats with our current military force. We cannot wage war on terror, bring democracy to the Middle East, and police the world. Don't forget about war torn Africa, the kidnappings in South America, or the turmoil in Mexico. What will the US do about those conflicts?
Feel free to add things I may have left out.
~Bas/J Dawg
ETA: In case you were wondering and couldn't tell, I'm a staunch Democrat.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-09-23 03:45 pm (UTC)I don't vote for parties...I vote for people. And technically in NJ, you can't register for a particular party.
I know, I'm a HUGE help. :D
♥
no subject
Date: 2004-09-23 03:48 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-24 08:18 pm (UTC)HOWEVER, that doesn't mean, that if a candidate of a different party put forth a convincing campaign and seemed to be a good person that I would still vote for my party regardless of whether or not that is really a good idea.
I think, unless I am grossly ignorant of the US political structure (which I am ignorant of but I don't know the extent of the ignornace) that it is much easier to be a candidate-person than a party-person. You elect a specific person to be the leader of your country whereas we elect a party to lead the country and whoever happens to be the leader of said party ends up being the leader of the country. I can't really say which method I prefer.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-24 08:23 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-24 08:35 pm (UTC)I *know* that if I were a US citizen I would be a candidate person. I mean come on! I would be a democrat too but the popular opinion agrees that -- I think I was just about to make a mistake so I'll stop that there. Was Bill Clinton a democrat? He was right? Blah.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-24 08:41 pm (UTC)People in the States just don't educate themselves. I know my mom isn't a Republican, but she refuses to find out about the issues because Republicans = convervative = religious according to her. I think if she looked at it, she'd see that Bush isn't even bothering with the 10 commandments: Thou shalt not kill? It was one thing to have to stop bin Laden, but we never did. We went after Saddam without the UN's help. Bin Laden was the US threat. Saddam was a global threat. Not to mention Bush is just plain fucking retarded on camera. The man isn't articulate at all and I don't find it cute or funny. I find it disturbing. Or how about standing in front of the National Guardsmen and women and thanking them for protecting our nation's borders and then he goes and sends them overseas to Iraq. The law says he can send them into wars pertinent to protecting our borders, but Iraq is a liberation mission not a defensive strike.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-24 08:51 pm (UTC)XD