dem vs rep comparison - Page 1

Democrat vs Republican
Diffen ›
Politics ›
U.S. Politics

This is an unbiased overview of the differences between the policies and political positions of the Democratic and Republican parties in the U.S. These two parties dominate America's political landscape but differ greatly in their philosophies and ideals.

Democratic Party vs Republican Party redirects here.

Comparison chart

	Democrat Currently 3.83/5 1 2 3 4 5 Rating: 3.8/5 (3296 votes)	Republican Currently 3.78/5 1 2 3 4 5 Rating: 3.8/5 (3114 votes)
About:	A Democrat may be one who votes or supports the American Democratic political party, aligns with their leadership and donates, volunteers or participates in the party for purposes of governing the society.	A Republican may be one who votes for the American Republican political Party, aligns with their leadership and donates, volunteers or participates in the party for purposes of governing society
Philosophy:	Liberal	Conservative
Economic Ideas:	Favor minimum wages and progressive taxation i.e. higher tax rates for higher income brackets.	Believe taxes shouldn't be increased for anyone (including the wealthy) and that wages should reflect free market.
Stand on Military issues:	Decreased spending	Increased spending
Stand on Death penalty:	Support for the death penalty is strong among democrats but opponents are a substantial fraction.	A large majority of Republicans support the death penalty.
Stand on abortion:	Should not be made illegal; support Roe v. Wade (some Democrats disagree)	Should not be legal; oppose Roe v. Wade (some Republicans disagree)
Stand on gay marriage:	Support (some Democrats disagree)	Oppose (some Republicans disagree)
Social and human ideas:	Community and social responsibility based	Individual rights and justice based
Traditionally strong in states:	California, Massachusetts	Oklahoma, Kansas, Texas
Symbol:	Donkey	Elephant
Color:	Blue	Red
Founded in:	1824	1854
Website:	www.democrats.org	www.gop.com
Senate Leader:	Harry Reid	Mitch McConnell
Chairperson:	Debbie Wasserman Schultz	Reince Priebus

 

http://www.villagevoice.com/2008-03-11/news/why-i-am-no-longer-a-brain-dead-liberal/ 

If we're doing comparisons of world views, this is a good one.  Basically it says that people are greedy and stupid.  Conservatives accept this.  Liberals want to organize in order to make the world a better place by passing laws to make people behave as they should.  Unfortunately these organizations or governments are run by greedy, stupid people, so this theory can never work.  Sounds pretty logical to me.

From Chris Mooney:

What accounts for the “smart idiot” effect?

For one thing, well-informed or well-educated conservatives probably consume more conservative news and opinion, such as by watching Fox News. Thus, they are more likely to know what they’re supposed to think about the issues—what people like them think—and to be familiar with the arguments or reasons for holding these views. If challenged, they can then recall and reiterate these arguments. They’ve made them a part of their identities, a part of their brains, and in doing so, they’ve drawn a strong emotional connection between certain “facts” or claims, and their deeply held political values. And they’re ready to argue.

What this suggests, critically, is that sophisticated conservatives may be very different from unsophisticated or less-informed ones. Paradoxically, we would expect less informed conservatives to be easier to persuade, and more responsive to new and challenging information.

In fact, there is even research suggesting that the most rigid and inflexible breed of conservatives—so-called authoritarians—do not really become their ideological selves until they actually learn something about politics first. A kind of “authoritarian activation” needs to occur, and it happens through the development of political “expertise.” Consuming a lot of political information seems to help authoritarians feel who they are—whereupon they become more accepting of inequality, more dogmatically traditionalist, and more resistant to change.

So now the big question: Are liberals also “smart idiots”?

There’s no doubt that more knowledge—or more political engagement—can produce more bias on either side of the aisle. That’s because it forges a stronger bond between our emotions and identities on the one hand, and a particular body of facts on the other.

But there are also reason to think that, with liberals, there is something else going on. Liberals, to quote George Lakoff, subscribe to a view that might be dubbed “Old Enlightenment reason.” They really do seem to like facts; it seems to be part of who they are. And fascinatingly, in Kahan’s study liberals did not act like smart idiots when the question posed was about the safety of nuclear power.

Nuclear power is a classic test case for liberal biases—kind of the flip side of the global warming issue–for the following reason. It’s well known that liberals tend to start out distrustful of nuclear energy: There’s a long history of this on the left. But this impulse puts them at odds with the views of the scientific community on the matter (scientists tend to think nuclear power risks are overblown, especially in light of the dangers of other energy sources, like coal).

So are liberals “smart idiots” on nukes? Not in Kahan’s study. As members of the “egalitarian communitarian” group in the study—people with more liberal values–knew more science and math, they did not become more worried, overall, about the risks of nuclear power. Rather, they moved in the opposite direction from where these initial impulses would have taken them. They become less worried—and, I might add, closer to the opinion of the scientific community on the matter.

You may or may not support nuclear power personally, but let’s face it: This is not the “smart idiot” effect. It looks a lot more like open-mindedness.

The flaw at the root of Liberal thinking is the same thing that makes Liberals so arrogant. They know their ideas can work on paper, where you can leave out the human factor. The idea that every member of a society will produce to his best capacity while only using what he really needs is a fine one, as long as you leave it to insects or robots and not try to force flawed, imperfect, self-aware human beings to live by such a system. People will hoard goods, engage in black markets, slack off work whenever they can and bribe officials to avoid unpleasant duties. Liberals seem to think that people can be made perfect if the right laws are passed, and if you teach them young enough. But to make that system work in the real world, you have to enforce the laws with heavy police presence, cameras everywhere, indoctrination and secret police... and you end up living in the novel 1984. 

The idea that you can simply tax wealthy people and corporations to get money works fine... as long as those entities don't find a way to hide their money, avoid the tax using influence with politicians and officials, or pass the tax along to consumers. In the real world, that's exactly what happens -- plus it destroys the only valid incentive for hard work. But taxing wealth works on paper, so obviously it's a perfect idea. Again, the only way to make it function in the real world is total government control, which ends with everyone (except the ruling class) being equally destitute and miserable.

The problem starts with the way college students, especially, are taught to examine a problem: by taking it out of context, disconnecting it from outside influences and consequences. If you tax entity A you will always generate X amount of revenue, on paper. But in the real world, every action has consequences and repercussions, everything is connected to everything else, and human nature cannot simply be left out of the equation. Entity A will hide his money in tax shelters, charge Entity B more for his goods, fire Entity C to save paying his salary, bribe Entity D and make campaign donations to Entity E's re-election campaign to avoid paying that tax out of his own pocket.

Real life is far more complicated than Liberals seem to comprehend. That's why their solutions to the problems we face are usually both simplistic and unrealistic. But they work on paper, so we're the stupid ones.

Why do you neocons never give credit to the people whose words you plagiarize?  Have you no integrity?

Hey Keith

I’m glad the GOP is planning to go ahead with their convention despite hurricane Isaac. That’s the message they need to send: “We’re not some sissy Democrats; some wind and rain ain’t gonna scare us off.” And think of the fun for the hippies trying to protest outside while dealing with hurricane force winds — there will be placards and papier-mâché puppets stuck up in trees. Hippies can’t deal with harsh conditions; that’s why they’re whiny hippies. I assume you will be there.

I typically avoid douchebag conventions.

Is that because you have a "war" on women?.........LOL!!!!!!!!!!