http://www.vox.com/2014/9/15/6131919/democrats-and-republicans-really-are-different

9/17/2014 6:20:28 PM

No. They really aren't.

9/17/2014 9:44:39 PM

Skimmed it. Vastly exceeded my expectations.

9/18/2014 1:49:40 PM

^ In what sense?

Seems more like the fleshed out conventional wisdom with some hard data to me.

If Republicans project their ideologue nature onto the democrats, the democrats should embrace this. Rather than framing the opposite ideology to "small government" as "big government" the Democrats should openly embrace the ideology of "efficient government".



[Edited on September 18, 2014 at 2:06 PM. Reason : ]

9/18/2014 2:05:33 PM

The fact that Democrats are under more pressure to pass policy by interest groups is a meaningful claim which stemmed from the data.

I don't know if that really argues the author's central thesis, and I'm not sure if I care. I hope the author wasn't literally trying to convince me that Republicans come from Mars, although I believe this did happen in Mars Attacks.

Quote :

"If Republicans project their ideologue nature onto the democrats, the democrats should embrace this. Rather than framing the opposite ideology to "small government" as "big government" the Democrats should openly embrace the ideology of "efficient government"."

This just confirms the article's argument that Republicans have enjoyed more theological agreement with the voters. The size of government is a binary - either smaller or larger. If one side argues "smaller" and the other side argues "well we don't necessary agree, we just think a few things need tweaking, and maybe we can blah blah..." then government gets smaller.

Protecting programs that many voters hold dear is a part of what Democrats do - what they must do. So they're for big government. Government's size will change until the parties disagree in opposite directions, otherwise we don't have equilibrium. If I push a car in one direction and you don't touch it, it should move (neglecting static friction).

More perplexing is how Republicans (with broader ideological support) managed to screw everything up. I would agree that Democrats have been more pragmatic and effective, but this isn't a ideological position, it's only the "track record" speaking. That's not something you can rely on forever. Leadership comes and goes.

[Edited on September 18, 2014 at 3:39 PM. Reason : ]

9/18/2014 3:38:18 PM

Can I get the tl;dr version?

9/18/2014 4:05:16 PM

Republicans, they are from mars.

Democrats, they are from venus.

9/18/2014 5:39:44 PM

Men are from Mars
Women are from Venus

so it sounds about right.

9/18/2014 5:42:49 PM

I think it's a little kind and way too simple to describe republicans as ideologues , especially if we are talking about actual republican politicians. Smaller government? Every republican president since Reagan has grown the size of government. Republicans fight every day for huge military spending increases, bills controlling vaginas and marriage are pretty popular in republican controlled states these days. Most of the proposed "privatization" schemes I've seen lately are corporate welfare. Their record on civil liberties and police militarization is also generally pretty terrible (yes many of these apply to both parties).

There is a huge difference between having an ideaology and just leaning on one when it's convenient. When parts of your worldview aren't grounded in reality (trickle down, climate change denial, we are a Christian nation) you need something to fall back to.

9/18/2014 5:46:02 PM

That was pretty much my gripe with the piece going in, but really, I think it does a pretty good job of supporting the point. It's just that the central Republican ideology isn't really that of small government...or if it is, it's small-er government and with a lot of asterisks to fit their broader ideology.

The point of the article isn't to debate GOP commitment to small government. That is tangential to what the article is about.

Quote :

"Most of the proposed "privatization" schemes I've seen lately are corporate welfare"

I think that it could be argued that this is at least partly BECAUSE of the GOP tending toward focus on ideology at the expense of being interested in and savvy about policy.

[Edited on September 18, 2014 at 6:19 PM. Reason : ]

9/18/2014 6:17:56 PM

And every asterisk has to be wedged in there because republicans are courting some specific special interest. It's not really that different than what they described the democrats as: a coalition of special interest groups fighting for pragmatic legislation gains. Except most republican legislation isn't even that pragmatic (especially lately), so they fall back to this nuanced ideology that can simply be summed up as "smaller government***"


Edit: I don't think republican politicians are idiots. I think they know exactly what they are doing with privatization and they know exactly who they are serving, their own special interest groups.


I'm all for some vox articles getting posted and discussed though, they do some interesting stuff. I just think this one was a little tilted.

[Edited on September 18, 2014 at 6:41 PM. Reason : Editity]

9/18/2014 6:29:38 PM

that's a valid argument, too.

...but I would still argue that there's an element of those asterisks fitting an ideology. it just isn't [ideo]logically consistent in the sense that you and I would define an ideology. Maybe "worldview" is a better word?



[Edited on September 18, 2014 at 6:41 PM. Reason : i think that some of them are very smart and absolutely know what they're doing. Some are dumbasses.]

9/18/2014 6:40:04 PM

In some ways I'm projecting on the GOP. I'm pretty damn liberal, but I still value conservative voices on many issues , and I truly wish we had some republican candidates running on a more consistent "smaller government" ideology both to start the public discussion and to give myself more voting options. As is, I just can't see myself ever voting republican, all of those asterisks just scare the bejesus out of me.

9/18/2014 6:51:53 PM

yeah, it would be tough to imagine a scenario where I'd vote for a Democrat, but there aren't many Republicans I can vote for, either.

My preference is, in priority order:

1. Vote (R)
2. Vote (L)
3. Vote "fuck all of you" (i.e., "none of the above" or "no confidence")
4. Don't vote (i.e., no viable candidates and no opportunity for write-in, where I'll usually write "none of the above")

I'd say it's maybe 10% #1, 20-30% #2, and the rest #s 3 and 4.


...but anyway, that's beside the point of this thread. Back to discussing how all these motherfuckers are screwed up in different ways.

9/18/2014 8:11:41 PM

^ voting in primaries is probably more valuable than any of those options 1 to 4. Even if you voted in primaries and didn't vote in the general elections, you'll probably have more of an effect. Plus, in the primaries you actually manage to have some sway in either the ideological direction, or the type of cloth that you want candidates cut out of.

If the system isn't producing any candidates you like, then the best thing to do is go further upstream in the selection process to make your voice heard. If you're already voting in the primaries, this advice is probably useless. But these days, I think the Republican primaries are a critical point.

Except for 2016 president. Because Warren > Clinton.

9/19/2014 9:01:42 AM

Shouldn't the republicans be from Venus and the Democrats from Mars?

In my experience dealing with women, they generally just want to complain about a situation and get angry when males attempt to actually dive into the problem and find a way to fix it.

9/19/2014 1:46:23 PM

^ haha, maybe. Probably could make the case for either. Maybe we should just say that most of both groups are straight from Uranus.

^^ Agreed. I vote in GOP primaries in cases where there's anyone worth a damn to vote for, which is not the case many times even in primaries. Primaries are half of why I'm still registered GOP. The other reason is that I'd someday possibly run for office, and it would be on the GOP ticket.

I've mentioned on here before that in '08, I actually voted for McCain in the primary, and still didn't vote for him in the general election, because he sold out and "went full-retard" in the interim.

Last time, I held my nose and voted for Ron Paul in the primary, only because I knew he had no chance of winning and figured the "statement" was worth voting for someone who I really didn't especially support. I wanted to vote for Gary Johnson, but he had dropped out before the FL primary. I didn't vote in the general election for President (as usual).

In local/state politics here in my district (aside from maybe Gov), there's rarely any point in voting at all. The primaries are usually decided about 95%/5%, and they're usually someone I don't really support vs a complete joke candidate (that has no chance, is often a total wingnut, generally not competent for the office, and that I often don't agree with much, either). The general election is pretty much guaranteed GOP, anyway (again, other than Gov).

9/19/2014 4:00:00 PM

Saying things online like "went full-retard" may bite you in the ass if/when you try to run for office. Just sayin...

9/21/2014 9:53:52 AM

Duke will use his mod powers to delete all his own posts.

9/21/2014 12:21:37 PM

Quote :

"Saying things online like "went full-retard" may bite you in the ass if/when you try to run for office. Just sayin..."

And thus proving that the popularity contests the elect our governance is completely hijacked by the PC/feminist police.

Can I have assisting poor people without question along without social justice bullshit?

9/21/2014 10:51:41 PM

white men have it sooo tough. having to talk without disdain about others if they want them to vote for them.

[Edited on September 21, 2014 at 11:38 PM. Reason : .]

9/21/2014 11:38:18 PM

^^^^ hence the quote marks, giving a nod to Tropic Thunder.

9/21/2014 11:44:01 PM

Quote :

"white men have it sooo tough. having to talk without disdain about others if they want them to vote for them."

I believe that the disdain expressed above was in reference to an old, white, and powerful man.

9/22/2014 8:03:34 AM

^^double quotes or not, the PC lobby is gonna come after ya.

9/22/2014 9:04:18 AM

He went full-retard by using the term "full retard" is what they'll say...

9/22/2014 6:14:57 PM

i've bookmarked this so i can post a link on your wikipedia page

9/22/2014 6:50:06 PM

^^^ that line will be the least of my problems with those dicksucks.

9/22/2014 11:03:37 PM

Quote :

"I believe that the disdain expressed above was in reference to an old, white, and powerful man. "

was referring to the PC police mention above.

[Edited on September 23, 2014 at 12:28 AM. Reason : .]

9/23/2014 12:28:36 AM

http://www.republicansarepeopletoo.com

Lolololol

9/29/2014 9:48:59 AM