Without being caustic or humorous (if you want to make a joke one make a serious one too) can you define, in your opinion, the various political parties? I'm not asking this because I don't know the definitions I am just curious of peoples opinions. You can (and most likely will) be biased in writing this. I'm not going to post any in the OP I want to think about it a little first.
Define polticical parties.
- Thread starter smalien1
- Start date
PittsburghAfterDark
CAGiversary!
Political parties have one definition. A group of like minded individuals pooling resources to compete in and win elections.
You'll never get agreements on what either major political party stands for. The last 10 years have blown conventional stances to hell in back for both parties.
You'll never get agreements on what either major political party stands for. The last 10 years have blown conventional stances to hell in back for both parties.
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Political parties have one definition. A group of like minded individuals pooling resources to compete in and win elections.
You'll never get agreements on what either major political party stands for. The last 10 years have blown conventional stances to hell in back for both parties.[/QUOTE]
That was the point, it's opinions, no one is supposed to agree.
You'll never get agreements on what either major political party stands for. The last 10 years have blown conventional stances to hell in back for both parties.[/QUOTE]
That was the point, it's opinions, no one is supposed to agree.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
The easiest way to differentiate in United States politics is looking at social and fiscal issues separately, and defining positions as "conservative" (status quo content or culturally regressive) or "liberal" (advocating for fundamental change, forward thinking).
Republicans are conservative both fiscally and socially.
Democrats are liberal both fiscally and socially.
Libertarians are fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
Few are fiscally liberal and socially conservative.
This is an egregious overgeneralization, of course.
Republicans are conservative both fiscally and socially.
Democrats are liberal both fiscally and socially.
Libertarians are fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
Few are fiscally liberal and socially conservative.
This is an egregious overgeneralization, of course.
[quote name='mykevermin']The easiest way to differentiate in United States politics is looking at social and fiscal issues separately, and defining positions as "conservative" (status quo content or culturally regressive) or "liberal" (advocating for fundamental change, forward thinking).
Republicans are conservative both fiscally and socially.
Democrats are liberal both fiscally and socially.
Libertarians are fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
Few are fiscally liberal and socially conservative.
This is an egregious overgeneralization, of course.[/QUOTE]
It is assumed that you would generalize.
Republicans are conservative both fiscally and socially.
Democrats are liberal both fiscally and socially.
Libertarians are fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
Few are fiscally liberal and socially conservative.
This is an egregious overgeneralization, of course.[/QUOTE]
It is assumed that you would generalize.
[quote name='mykevermin']The easiest way to differentiate in United States politics is looking at social and fiscal issues separately, and defining positions as "conservative" (status quo content or culturally regressive) or "liberal" (advocating for fundamental change, forward thinking).
Republicans are conservative both fiscally and socially.
Democrats are liberal both fiscally and socially.
Libertarians are fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
Few are fiscally liberal and socially conservative.
This is an egregious overgeneralization, of course.[/QUOTE]
If we were in the 60's, yeah.
Republicans are NOT fiscally conservative. Democrats have now taken that role. Remember Clinton's motto, "balance the budget"? Spend less, make more.
Weren't you one of the people on here who were sprearheading the debate about how Bush Jr. spends? How the deficit is out of whack?
As far as socially conservative, yes. But not by your "definition" of conservative.
Webster's has this to say:
con·ser·va·tive (k
n-sûr
v
-t
v)
adj. Of or relating to treatment by gradual, limited, or well-established procedures; not radical.
I find this definition to be more level-headed and rational. Conservatives don't want to change culture just for the heck of it. We'd rather not screw up the good thing we have.
Regressive???
Come on myke. Now you're arguments are starting to sound like PAD's.
Republicans are conservative both fiscally and socially.
Democrats are liberal both fiscally and socially.
Libertarians are fiscally conservative and socially liberal.
Few are fiscally liberal and socially conservative.
This is an egregious overgeneralization, of course.[/QUOTE]
If we were in the 60's, yeah.
Republicans are NOT fiscally conservative. Democrats have now taken that role. Remember Clinton's motto, "balance the budget"? Spend less, make more.
Weren't you one of the people on here who were sprearheading the debate about how Bush Jr. spends? How the deficit is out of whack?
As far as socially conservative, yes. But not by your "definition" of conservative.
Webster's has this to say:
con·ser·va·tive (k
adj. Of or relating to treatment by gradual, limited, or well-established procedures; not radical.
I find this definition to be more level-headed and rational. Conservatives don't want to change culture just for the heck of it. We'd rather not screw up the good thing we have.
Regressive???
Come on myke. Now you're arguments are starting to sound like PAD's.
doraemonkerpal
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 60 (100%)
urban dictionary definitions:
Libertarian
A former Republican who grew larger balls and decided to say
the establishment.
I became Libertarian once I fully understood the Constitution.
Source: B-Dogg, Oct 17, 2003
republican
An individual who believes that the white male Christian God should be the only object of worship on the planet, that power and wealth should remain in the hands of 1% of the world's population while the remaining 99% starve, that health care should be privatized so the poor can't afford basic medication, that a rape victim living on welfare should be forced to care for a baby she didn't even ask for, and that America is the only real country on Earth while all those other countries they read about are just fakes invented by communists...oh wait, it's terrorists now, isn't it?
We can all hope that the standard of education in America improves to the point where a Republican can no longer be voted into office.
Source: Grimrider, Nov 27, 2002
democrat
Political part in support of:
Free'er speach
Unmonitering of the internet
sheltering the homeless
p2p filesharing
raising taxes
stopping racism
equal rights
enviormentalism
Johny is a demorcrat: coollll!!
Source: Michael/halfamitten/mpd, Miami, May 10, 2005
Libertarian
A former Republican who grew larger balls and decided to say
the establishment.I became Libertarian once I fully understood the Constitution.
Source: B-Dogg, Oct 17, 2003
republican
An individual who believes that the white male Christian God should be the only object of worship on the planet, that power and wealth should remain in the hands of 1% of the world's population while the remaining 99% starve, that health care should be privatized so the poor can't afford basic medication, that a rape victim living on welfare should be forced to care for a baby she didn't even ask for, and that America is the only real country on Earth while all those other countries they read about are just fakes invented by communists...oh wait, it's terrorists now, isn't it?
We can all hope that the standard of education in America improves to the point where a Republican can no longer be voted into office.
Source: Grimrider, Nov 27, 2002
democrat
Political part in support of:
Free'er speach
Unmonitering of the internet
sheltering the homeless
p2p filesharing
raising taxes
stopping racism
equal rights
enviormentalism
Johny is a demorcrat: coollll!!
Source: Michael/halfamitten/mpd, Miami, May 10, 2005
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Derwood43']
If we were in the 60's, yeah.
Republicans are NOT fiscally conservative. Democrats have now taken that role. Remember Clinton's motto, "balance the budget"? Spend less, make more.
Weren't you one of the people on here who were sprearheading the debate about how Bush Jr. spends? How the deficit is out of whack?[/quote]
That was probably me, and if it was not, I wish it were. The argument you are making is one of comparing practice to ideology, which simply doesn't work in politics. Fiscally conservative, as I meant it anyway, includes a balanced budget for a small, power limited federal government, and an emphasis on laissez-faire capitalist market (which we certainly still have). It, again to me, also implies a lower tax rate (if we apply supply-side economic theories here). To me, "conservative" still resonates most clearly with a Goldwater-esque philosphy to government (so, your smary response is accurate, I suppose
). While conservatism has drifted far away from Goldwater, and seems to emphasize broad federal government powers and yet still, low tax rates, I think that the *definition* of conservatism is far, far away from what conservatives practice these days. To conclude, then (and cover my ass), the OP did ask about definitions.
I'm seeing the "regressive" and "well-established" as synonyms. "Regressive" isn't the best way to put it, but it is semantically accurate. It doesn't imply that I think right wingers want to bring back the stockades, or reinstitute slavery. What I think "regressive" means is that, for social conservatives, there is a previous point in history or society that they can reference and say "look at this time. Things were better back then, when we had this, said this, and did this. This is the gold standard." Take marriage for instance, it fits in perfectly well with my comparison. You might take what I say with a grain of salt, but it isn't inaccurate, is it?
smalien, thanks for the compliment. I'll be up all night crying now, asshole.
If we were in the 60's, yeah.
Republicans are NOT fiscally conservative. Democrats have now taken that role. Remember Clinton's motto, "balance the budget"? Spend less, make more.
Weren't you one of the people on here who were sprearheading the debate about how Bush Jr. spends? How the deficit is out of whack?[/quote]
That was probably me, and if it was not, I wish it were. The argument you are making is one of comparing practice to ideology, which simply doesn't work in politics. Fiscally conservative, as I meant it anyway, includes a balanced budget for a small, power limited federal government, and an emphasis on laissez-faire capitalist market (which we certainly still have). It, again to me, also implies a lower tax rate (if we apply supply-side economic theories here). To me, "conservative" still resonates most clearly with a Goldwater-esque philosphy to government (so, your smary response is accurate, I suppose
). While conservatism has drifted far away from Goldwater, and seems to emphasize broad federal government powers and yet still, low tax rates, I think that the *definition* of conservatism is far, far away from what conservatives practice these days. To conclude, then (and cover my ass), the OP did ask about definitions.As far as socially conservative, yes. But not by your "definition" of conservative.
Webster's has this to say:
con·ser·va·tive (kn-sûrv-tv)
adj. Of or relating to treatment by gradual, limited, or well-established procedures; not radical.
I find this definition to be more level-headed and rational. Conservatives don't want to change culture just for the heck of it. We'd rather not screw up the good thing we have.
Regressive???
Come on myke. Now you're arguments are starting to sound like PAD's.
I'm seeing the "regressive" and "well-established" as synonyms. "Regressive" isn't the best way to put it, but it is semantically accurate. It doesn't imply that I think right wingers want to bring back the stockades, or reinstitute slavery. What I think "regressive" means is that, for social conservatives, there is a previous point in history or society that they can reference and say "look at this time. Things were better back then, when we had this, said this, and did this. This is the gold standard." Take marriage for instance, it fits in perfectly well with my comparison. You might take what I say with a grain of salt, but it isn't inaccurate, is it?
smalien, thanks for the compliment. I'll be up all night crying now, asshole.
Drocket
CAGiversary!
As mykevermin pretty much already said, you pretty much have to decide whether you're talking about what conservatives preach theoretically, and what they actually do (and to a lesser degree, the same applies to liberals.) The Republicans have definitely gotten their ideas for how a government should be run turned all around since they came into power. Smaller government? Yeah, right. If the Democrats are the big government party, with the Republicans are the big, big, BIG government party...
I would definitely, without a doubt, define the Republican party as socially regressive. There's a LOT of things that have changed over the years that they want to change back, and when you're talking about change, you're no longer merely 'maintaining' anything. The Republicans want the 1950's back. And not the real 1950's, either - the 1950's as shown on 'Ozzie and Harriet' and 'Father Knows Best'. Get rid of abortion, massively restrict divorce, get women back in the kitchen (where God intended them to be, popping out babies every 12 months on schedule), cram Jesus down the throat of every man, woman and child in the country (screw freedom of religion), and that'll just be the beginning. If that doesn't qualify as regressive, I don't know what does.
I would definitely, without a doubt, define the Republican party as socially regressive. There's a LOT of things that have changed over the years that they want to change back, and when you're talking about change, you're no longer merely 'maintaining' anything. The Republicans want the 1950's back. And not the real 1950's, either - the 1950's as shown on 'Ozzie and Harriet' and 'Father Knows Best'. Get rid of abortion, massively restrict divorce, get women back in the kitchen (where God intended them to be, popping out babies every 12 months on schedule), cram Jesus down the throat of every man, woman and child in the country (screw freedom of religion), and that'll just be the beginning. If that doesn't qualify as regressive, I don't know what does.
[quote name='Drocket']As mykevermin pretty much already said, you pretty much have to decide whether you're talking about what conservatives preach theoretically, and what they actually do (and to a lesser degree, the same applies to liberals.) The Republicans have definitely gotten their ideas for how a government should be run turned all around since they came into power. Smaller government? Yeah, right. If the Democrats are the big government party, with the Republicans are the big, big, BIG government party...
I would definitely, without a doubt, define the Republican party as socially regressive. There's a LOT of things that have changed over the years that they want to change back, and when you're talking about change, you're no longer merely 'maintaining' anything. The Republicans want the 1950's back. And not the real 1950's, either - the 1950's as shown on 'Ozzie and Harriet' and 'Father Knows Best'. Get rid of abortion, massively restrict divorce, get women back in the kitchen (where God intended them to be, popping out babies every 12 months on schedule), cram Jesus down the throat of every man, woman and child in the country (screw freedom of religion), and that'll just be the beginning. If that doesn't qualify as regressive, I don't know what does.[/QUOTE]
Wow, what a thought provoking argument. It is well thought out, and summarily formed.
SIKE! Quick! Go lean against a wall before you fall completely on your left side.
I would love to engage in jovial banter with you, but given your first post...
Myke-
Now there's the cream filling! That's the type of response I expect from you. Way to go.
BTW, I still don't agree with you.
I would definitely, without a doubt, define the Republican party as socially regressive. There's a LOT of things that have changed over the years that they want to change back, and when you're talking about change, you're no longer merely 'maintaining' anything. The Republicans want the 1950's back. And not the real 1950's, either - the 1950's as shown on 'Ozzie and Harriet' and 'Father Knows Best'. Get rid of abortion, massively restrict divorce, get women back in the kitchen (where God intended them to be, popping out babies every 12 months on schedule), cram Jesus down the throat of every man, woman and child in the country (screw freedom of religion), and that'll just be the beginning. If that doesn't qualify as regressive, I don't know what does.[/QUOTE]
Wow, what a thought provoking argument. It is well thought out, and summarily formed.
SIKE! Quick! Go lean against a wall before you fall completely on your left side.
I would love to engage in jovial banter with you, but given your first post...
Myke-
Now there's the cream filling! That's the type of response I expect from you. Way to go.
BTW, I still don't agree with you.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Derwood43']BTW, I still don't agree with you. [/QUOTE]
I wouldn't have it any other way.
[/QUOTE]I wouldn't have it any other way.
Drocket
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Derwood43']:SIKE! Quick! Go lean against a wall before you fall completely on your left side. [/QUOTE]
The funny thing is that at one point in my life, I actually considered myself somewhat conservative. Eventually, I realized how far to the right the right-wing goes, and discovered that I'm actually somewhat liberal. In the US, at least, that is - in most of Europe, I'd actually be radical right-wing, since 'neutral' in Europe is vastly to the left of where it is in the US. All of which goes to show that the entire liberal/conservative divide is actually quite arbitrary and pointless.
[/QUOTE]The funny thing is that at one point in my life, I actually considered myself somewhat conservative. Eventually, I realized how far to the right the right-wing goes, and discovered that I'm actually somewhat liberal. In the US, at least, that is - in most of Europe, I'd actually be radical right-wing, since 'neutral' in Europe is vastly to the left of where it is in the US. All of which goes to show that the entire liberal/conservative divide is actually quite arbitrary and pointless.
if you are serious in pursuing the topic, i suggest you read Michael F. Holt's The Political Crisis of the 1850s. while i don't agree with what he says, he does give an excellent overview of how political parties form their function, and how they survive. it's an easy read too; i highly recommend it.
OK heres mine-
Republicans don't want change, they like it the way it is because they are in power.
Democrats want change because they aren't in power or feel bad for those who aren't in power. They want various rights and equalities.
Libertarian's believe in minmal government- that's more fact than opinion, I chose to 'define' libertarian over other third parties because thats what everyone else did.
That is mainly social but can also mean economic.
Republicans don't want change, they like it the way it is because they are in power.
Democrats want change because they aren't in power or feel bad for those who aren't in power. They want various rights and equalities.
Libertarian's believe in minmal government- that's more fact than opinion, I chose to 'define' libertarian over other third parties because thats what everyone else did.
That is mainly social but can also mean economic.
zionoverfire
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 133 (100%)
[quote name='smalien1']OK heres mine-
Republicans don't want change, they like it the way it is because they are in power.
Democrats want change because they aren't in power or feel bad for those who aren't in power. They want various rights and equalities.
Libertarian's believe in minmal government- that's more fact than opinion, I chose to 'define' libertarian over other third parties because thats what everyone else did.
That is mainly social but can also mean economic.[/QUOTE]
Republicans want change but just like the Deomcrats it's toward some silly idealistic world where everyone agrees with them. Libertarians realize what a crock both parities are but fail to realize that most people are too weak to make desicions on their own.
Republicans don't want change, they like it the way it is because they are in power.
Democrats want change because they aren't in power or feel bad for those who aren't in power. They want various rights and equalities.
Libertarian's believe in minmal government- that's more fact than opinion, I chose to 'define' libertarian over other third parties because thats what everyone else did.
That is mainly social but can also mean economic.[/QUOTE]
Republicans want change but just like the Deomcrats it's toward some silly idealistic world where everyone agrees with them. Libertarians realize what a crock both parities are but fail to realize that most people are too weak to make desicions on their own.
sblymnlcrymnl
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 95 (99%)
There are selfish/unselfish realists/idealists. Someone else can match that up to parties if they want. For me, that's enough.
bread's done