The Party of Freedom
I'm constantly outraged by the conventional wisdom that Democrats are void of ideas. It's a familiar storyline in every news outlet. I'm not sure if it's case of laziness on the media or just shilling for the big money Republicans. Either way, it's a fallacy and needs to be stopped. It's downright laughable that it has become conventional wisdom. Neither party could function without ideas. Even if you favor the status quo, that's still a belief. The major religions have hardly changed any ideas in the past 2000 years. Where are the articles blasting the Catholic Church for a lack of ideas?
Now I do agree that the Democrats have been awful at articulating their ideas to the public for the past 20 years. One might argue they lack big new ideas, though I find that to be quite ridiculous. The world is too big and changing so fast that it would be impossible to progress as a society without some ideas. And everyone agrees with how partisan we as a society have become - how can this be true if only one side is bringing something new? Even if they have ideas about what we shouldn't do, those are still ideas. However, I think the problem is that Democrats get caught up way too much in the details so it becomes muddled as to where they actually stand. Is it better to have "big" ideas that are awful? Or what about stating ideas and not actually putting them into practice?
Republicans have 4 general principles - low taxes, cut government, big defense, pro-business. I won't go into detail about all of these but I think it's safe to remove cutting government since it's not put in practice. If you want to argue about that, please explain how it's true based on government spending figures under Reagan and the Bushes. My question is twofold. First, how are these new ideas? Second, what is an acceptable level of taxation? Reason I bring up point #2 is because I can not get any conservative friend to answer it. I assume we all believe that there needs to be a certain level of taxation for schools, roads, etc. Just stating you're for lower taxes then is an ideal more than an idea. For it to be an idea, there needs to be more substance.
Anyway, Mike already covered what Republicans stand for. If you read the post, it becomes obvious that they are the party of government intervention. Apparently their precious free markets fail unless the government interferes with protection and handouts and etc. They want to watch over you, take away your rights, etc. That's why I believe the Democrats should refer to themselves as the party of freedom. And they can be held up to any scrutiny and at least in comparison to Republicans, it would be true. So below is a brief list of what Democrats stand for - in case you believe the conventional wisdom that they are lacking ideas. And this is a quick list on a Friday after a very exhausting week of work. Just imagine what I could list if given more time.
Now I do agree that the Democrats have been awful at articulating their ideas to the public for the past 20 years. One might argue they lack big new ideas, though I find that to be quite ridiculous. The world is too big and changing so fast that it would be impossible to progress as a society without some ideas. And everyone agrees with how partisan we as a society have become - how can this be true if only one side is bringing something new? Even if they have ideas about what we shouldn't do, those are still ideas. However, I think the problem is that Democrats get caught up way too much in the details so it becomes muddled as to where they actually stand. Is it better to have "big" ideas that are awful? Or what about stating ideas and not actually putting them into practice?
Republicans have 4 general principles - low taxes, cut government, big defense, pro-business. I won't go into detail about all of these but I think it's safe to remove cutting government since it's not put in practice. If you want to argue about that, please explain how it's true based on government spending figures under Reagan and the Bushes. My question is twofold. First, how are these new ideas? Second, what is an acceptable level of taxation? Reason I bring up point #2 is because I can not get any conservative friend to answer it. I assume we all believe that there needs to be a certain level of taxation for schools, roads, etc. Just stating you're for lower taxes then is an ideal more than an idea. For it to be an idea, there needs to be more substance.
Anyway, Mike already covered what Republicans stand for. If you read the post, it becomes obvious that they are the party of government intervention. Apparently their precious free markets fail unless the government interferes with protection and handouts and etc. They want to watch over you, take away your rights, etc. That's why I believe the Democrats should refer to themselves as the party of freedom. And they can be held up to any scrutiny and at least in comparison to Republicans, it would be true. So below is a brief list of what Democrats stand for - in case you believe the conventional wisdom that they are lacking ideas. And this is a quick list on a Friday after a very exhausting week of work. Just imagine what I could list if given more time.
- Responsible government spending
- Effective government agencies (compare FEMA under Clinton & Bush)
- Environmental regulations to stop global warming and etc
- Right to privacy - includes being against government spying
- Diplomacy before war
- Stemming the threat of terrorism - I purposely stray away from stopping or any other big word that means nothing. Did we win the Cold War? Yes. Did we defeat communism? How do you defeat an idea? Is there still a communism party in this country? Was there terrorism in this world/country before 9/11?
- Free media
- Right to contraceptives
- Right to abortions
- Social Security
- Medicare
- Medicaid
- Health Care for all - they wrongly still haven't embraced Universal Health Care
- Thorough scientific research not hampered by religious zealots
- Low taxes on the poor and middle class - funny how tax and spend is CW when they just want higher tax rates for the wealthy
- Liveable minimum wage
- Open Internet - just look at the awful bill up right now that would restrict what's available through the Internet
- Separation of Church and State
- Lobbying reform
- Government accountability - would Rumsfeld have a job under Clinton? Would Fox News stop talking 24/7 if he did?
- Minority rights
- Gay rights
- Fair and open election process
Believe me, they are far from perfect. And I understand a lot of these are vague. But I can find multiple examples for all of these. I just wish the Republicans weren't so tied to the business and extreme fringes of their party. There's a lot of middle ground there that could have lead our country in the right direction. I prayer every day for a Democrat to become president next. Unfortunately, it may take a few terms just to get us back to 2000.
Tags:
* politics * president * george bush * republican * democrat * conservative * liberal * congress
* religion * partisan * tax cuts * cut government * big defense * pro-business * Reagan * taxation
* Social Security * Medicare * Health Care * minimum wage * Separation of Church and State
* Lobbying reform * Government accountability * Gay rights * Minority rights * Open Internet
* abortion * contraceptive * Free media * terrorism * Diplomacy * privacy * Environmental * FEMA
posted by Tom G at 4/28/2006
2 Comments:
It's not that the Democrats don't have ideas; they have a ton of ideas. Overall this is a benefit. You can expect the final decesion will come with a lot of thought and analysis.
Republicans on the other hand come up with one idea and hold on to it for dear life. This makes them a pretty dangerous group. People wonder how things like genoicide happens. Two words: group mentality.
i think your generalizations are rash and just as dangerous. Our current leader is extreme. He is a dictator by every measurable catagory. He is fiercly loyal to friends and gives them great benefits and a dangerous enemy when you go against him. He is a religious zealot and the majority of America does not support him. His approval ratings on FOX are now just 33% The most conservative station in the world and it's only a 33% approval rating!!!!
At this point, I believe the majority of Reblican senators and house members are simply afraid of him and the loss of support in their own campaigns.
He is a dictator and extremist. However, the very founder of the Democratic National Party was also an extremeists. Andrew Jackson committed a genocide right here in the United States when he murdered thosuands and thousands of Native Americans. He also brought down insitutions that resisted his policies. I know it was a long time ago and I guess my point is simply that I think speaking in generalizations and making sweeping accusations against one party essentially creates the same monster with a differant face. Clinton marched the finest line possible, right down the middle. He appealed to the middle which is where over 50% of the country resides. Heck, extremists from both parties disliked Clinton.
Rich
Post a Comment
<< Main