One of the big things that’s been bugging about discourse in the US is how absurdly partisan it is. I’d like to pretend that it doesn’t reach here, but that doesn’t seem to be the case: while many posters decided to jump on “reflexive Anti-Americanism” in the Nobel Prize thread, no one wanted to stick up for Republicans even a little bit (conveniently ignoring that Republicans make up a substantial portion of Americans and being in control of the White House for most of the time since 1980). This bugs me, but not as much as when Democrats can’t say a SINGLE nice thing about the Republicans since 1980 (instead saving any praise for Eisenhower and Nixon…the first being the guy who exploded the military budget despite his “military industrial complex” claims and the second being…well, ya know).

I’d mention the right-wingers, but we don’t actually have any regulars (I’m not convinced that WS isn’t just an example of Poe’s Law). The pundits can apply if you want to.

But maybe I’m wrong, so I’m wondering what you don’t like about the political party you tend to throw down with.


For me (Republican for simplicity sake):
Social Policy:
-Substantial portions of the Republican base seem racist
-Gay marriage opposition makes little sense
-An overly hard stance on the drug war
-Ignoring substantial evidence that sexism and racism still exist in our society in huge amounts, from the justice system to employment prospects
-Supporting nonsensical abortion policies and putting too much importance on the issue in general


Economic Policy:
-A reflexive hatred of government-programs (note that reflexive distrust isn’t bad, but Republicans go overboard)
-A reflexive trust of markets in all situations, essentially ending up creating subsidies for business through things like Medicare Advantage or monopoly markets in some deregulated environments
-An obsession with tax cuts. Some tax cuts are okay. Income taxes in general do not increase government revenues. They are also not effective stimulus of the economy.
-Ignoring modern conservatism’s large hand in substantially increasing public deficits
-Thinking “unregulated” means “free market,” or in general confusing socially efficient outcomes with Big Business. A lot of industries resemble oligopolies using non-price competition more than actual competitive markets, and that means substantial deadweight loss and excess profits for corporations. Ya know who really screws the customer over? Campbell’s Soup.
-Ignoring healthcare reform. Seriously, I think there’s something to be said for a true market approach, but Republicans made no steps towards it during the past 8 years, instead expanding benefits and throwing effort into Social Security reform. HC>SS in terms of importance.
-Thinking a flat tax or the fair tax is actually a viable method of taxation for the entire economy
-Ignoring their own hand in the creation of the mortgage crisis, through supporting things like the mortgage interest deduction (which was expanded under Reagan) and a lack of regulation of various derivatives, plus relaxing investment bank leverage ratios

Foreign Policy:
-Confusing negotiation with appeasement
-Thinking that transnational institutions are unnecessary and American hegemony is a lasting model for the world




Other:
-Sarah Palin…just…seriously, how the hell did anyone think Sarah Palin was a good VEEP choice?
-Intelligent Design…just…no…
-Not taking climate change seriously enough. I’m not an avid “we must stop everything now or else the world will be flooded, ZOMG!” but too many right-wingers are claiming is just a myth




Note that these are items that if addressed would move the Republican party in a left-ward direction. If the responses I get are “I think the Democrats are stupid for not pushing through HC reform with Republicans,” “Democrats are too mean to foreign countries,” and “what aren’t we getting single-payer?!” I’m going to lower my opinion of you substantially if you then complain about Republican partisanship and claim to be a centrist.

As much on nostalgic reasons as any, I consider the labour party in the UK to be "my" party.

I hate how much it has become the tool for corporate interests. I hate how they took a democratic socialist party and turned it into a smiley conservative party. I hate how it's the left wing party, and yet is constantly outflanked on social issues by the liberal democrats.

I hate that even with all this being the case, it's the only mainstream british political party to be worth a damn.

I have to say GV Champ, I have a lot more respect for you after your OP. It shows a lot of good reasons for why a lot of Republicans are bad and I agree with you on pretty much all of what you said about them.

I don't really have a party but let's pretend I am a Democrat just to go from there... I guess I only really disagree with them on things such as gun control and I don't think that most of them want to go far enough when it comes to drug legalization, at the very least the party as a whole should support marijuana legalization. Other than that I can't really think of much... except maybe being against general things that all parties seem to have to some degree, namely corruption.

Although I lean Democratic, there are a lot of things I disagree with them on.

Social Policy:
- I believe affirmitive action is the same as discrimination.
- I support gay marriage, the majority of the Democratic Party doesn't.
- I believe every gun below a rocket launcher should be safe, legal, and numerous, which is obviously contrary to most of the Democratic Party.
- Most Democrats support Polical Correctness, which I believe is against freedom of speech.

Economic Policy:
- The Democrats seem to be getting more for big government... which I strongly oppose.
- Some Democrats support a nationalization of certain means of production (meaning businesses). This I disagree with as it will lead to the inefficiencies present in the Soviet economy.
- Some Democrats unconditionally support labor unions, even when they are corrupt. This I disagree with.

Foreign Policy:
- Some Democrats are isolationist, which I strongly disagree with.
- I support the Liberation Movements (Chavez, Castro, the Sandinistas, etc) in Latin America; the Democrats obviously disagree.
- I also support the State of Israel, while many Democrats seem to support the Palestinians.

Other:
- I think that Reagan's Tort Reform was necessary.
- I think that the Clintons are Conservatives in disguise and that Rosie O'Donnell is crazy (along with most of Hollywood).
- I think that the reactionary sentiments of many Democrats, especially among hippies and environmentalists, are disgusting. A belief in tearing down society and rebuilding it as a supposed "socialist paradise" is disgusting in my opinion because it ignores all of the progress that humans have made from the time governments were established.

Hey Ned, so you are against a Soviet Style system in the U.S. but for one in Latin America? Makes sense.

Anarchists are so boring an repetitive.

I blame the state.

I'll echo DVB and give kudos for the OP. I wouldn't describe myself as a Democrat any more, but as an independent, but since I do tend to vote overwhelmingly Democrat in local elections it's fair enough for me to level my critique at the national Democrats in the context of this topic:

1. Slavish kowtowing to national unions on trade issues
2. Completely disproportionate influence accorded to Israel lobby
3. General submission to lobbying interests diluting legislation desired by their voters (hardly a singular Democrat failing)
4. Too quick to defend or overlook unethical or misogynist behavior of powerful figures (B. Clinton, Edwards)
5. The Big One: Unbelieveably cowardly at times, focusing on polls and re-election strategy instead of carrying out the mandate given in the previous election.

Fingerpointing, lack of bipartisanship, corruption, dynastic political influence ... those are general complaints about Congress, not a specific party, so although I loathe them in the Democrats, they are not specific to Democrats.

I'm sure I should post something about the Democrats, as if we're going to choose between the two main parties, they are the lesser of two evils. There are quite a number of major issues I take with them, so I'll just go over the highlights.

1) Death Penalty: they've got no plank on it (which is a positive change in my opinion from pushing for it...but then I remember before that, the Democrats were against the Death Penalty), though politicians often come out in support of it, just to show their constituents that they're "tough on crime". Give me a break. Never mind that it's a monstrously expensive system that accomplishes nothing, ugh.
2) While we're on that: penal reform. States spend quite a pretty penny now on maintaining a prison system that is costly, ineffective at reform/rehabilitation, and grows in price tag continuously.
3) Immigration Reform: I don't see anything really meaningful forthcoming. I'm not talking about Illegal Immigration, I'm talking about Legal Immigration. I mean come on, it's a nightmare.
4) Election Reform: Yet again, nothing meaningful whatsoever. I mean while I understand why politicians wouldn't want to cut themselves off of special interest and corporate monies, still...And how about the !@#$ing price of just having an election nowadays? Nothing on that either? I mean I understand our media-driven society deserves flashy ads, speeches, and shameless self-advertising/character assassination/fundraisers, I think, but come on.
5) Tax reform: Meh, I don't expect a whole lot in this department. The system will look slightly more progressive once they're done, but it ain't that progressive to begin with.
6) The Budget: MY EYES! While a good chunk of it can be pinned on the previous Bush Administration for raising/hiding expenditures in the budget, and Obama does deserve some credit for giving us a less...idealized version of the budget...still. Neither party has had what you would call a very good track record when it comes to budgeting, though in recent decades I would say the Republicans moreso.
7) Hypocrisy: They've been blasting the Republicans for nearly a decade over their lack of transparency, curtailment of civil rights, etc., and they haven't really done much to change that themselves. Plus they're acting just like the Republicans were when they were in power, so...what can I say? Being politicians?
8) War on Drugs: another sinkhole for monies. As I have said (not so seriously) before: legalize marijuana and tax it damnit.
9) Being the only viable "left-wing" *cough* party in American politics. Bleh.

I'm tired, this is just a few random points I found floating around in my head.

Rs AND Ds:
Social Policy:
-Rs want to completely eliminate social programs - Ds refuse to address the problems with them(welfare trap, anyone?)
-Rs hate gays, Ds hate guns
-Both support the drug war
-Rs ignore racism/sexism, Ds think affirmative action is the answer
-Rs are against rape victims getting the morning after pill, Ds support partial birth abortions and denying health care to children who were born despite a failed abortion


Economic Policy:
-Rs distrust most government programs, but want a large standing army, Ds think the fed/gov is the answer to every social problem we have
-Rs claim they want a free market but subsidize certain companies, while Ds create artificial monopolies with certain regulations
-Rs want tax cuts without a significant cut in expenditures, Ds just want to raise both
-Rs make deficits, Ds increase the deficits
-Rs ignore any HC reform, while Ds think the public option is the only answer(i.e. running to the fed/gov again)
-Rs only focus on cutting the personal income taxes of the rich, while Ds only focus on increasing the taxes across the board on the rich
-Rs and Ds, even if they claim to be free market champions, support the Fed, congressional interference, etc

Foreign Policy:
-Rs think sending diplomats is inferior to sending troops, Ds think we should appease the EU
-Rs and Ds both supports interventionist, country-building wars but refuse to stop actual genocide
-Rs ignore mounting evidence of climate change, Ds think Kyoto is the answer

I believe that a Soviet style system in Latin America is better than the old US-backed dictators they had for a century. I personally wish that there was a better alternative, but it seems as though the only people in Latin America argueing against US domination in Latin America are the people who are also for a Soviet style system

I like how you laud the OP for being able to say negative things about their party, but toe the party line in your post.

Strikes me as funny.

I disagree: Latin American democracies all looked rather promising...well, until we installed said dictators. Guatemala comes to mind immediately. We %#@$ed them up massively.

this is a criticism of democrat doves in the F.P. section as that's kinda what I am, though I'm more of a pragmatist

Social policy-
-No where near as pro-immigration as I would like. Back when we had complete open borders and anyone who got off the boat immediately became a citizen we had 15% of our population as immiggrants on any given year. I'd like to go to that
-That they kowtow to more conservative members and don't definitively set up a barrier between church and state.
-That they are far too obsessed with the media's effect on them, which excacerbates the media's effect on them

Economic policy-
-While I think that the dems are too driven towards deregulation in some cases, I still think that the Dems lack of innovation when it comes to inventive ways to increase the welfare state while lowering costs. I think the fact that the dems care as little as the GOP about deficits is a massive problem
-the continued combination of financial and productive sectors is driving down our efficiency, as it allows !@#$ty companies to live off their banking arms

Foriegn policy-
-The doves are too cowardly, the hawks too universalist. I'd like to pick up the business wing of the GOP, as the best 'dove' wing I could see would be more an internationalist wing who tries to do things economically and through the UN, while not being afraid of using hard power.
-The dislike towards the CIA or other military wings. This is yet again a criticism of the dove wing of the Dems, but since LBJ we haven't had a hawk dem president so here. While the military has almost far too much autonomy, many democratic doves have a massive fear of utilizing any of these groups in a situation that calls for it.

I think the two are connected. The fear that a populist who wants to affect change and lower poverty will be destroyed by a US-backed coup pushed the reformers into revolutionaries. Only now when we are weaker comparitively will Latin America be able to develop independently.

That's another thing, the dems's Foriegn policy is all over the place. I'd like to see focused policies towards helping Latin America and the Middle East.

Libertarian?

The immigration policy is too open, and I don't believe that something like meth should be made more readily available through legalization, even then I only really support decriminalization.

Hey kudos! Good for me I guess, thanks for the compliments


I'm interested in how you reconcile these two beliefs.



If someone is an extremist, I don't particularly have a problem with it (as long as they don't actually come to power). What does bug me, though, is when people decry obstructionist politics and claiming to be centrist when they are not actually centrist. On social issues I'm a liberal, on economic issues I'm somewhat to the right, on international issues I right wing. I'm not claiming to be a centrist relative to Americans, just to the right. But lots of people DO claim to be centrists when what they want is, say, single payer healthcare and nuclear unilateral disarmament (not on this forum but run with me). I think this is...well...not right!

Clinton was a war president.

Ain't in a party, but I associate with the Democrats the most. Gotta say my main complaint with them is their lack of spine.

Not after Somalia or Rwanda, I wouldn't say so.

Well I'm sorry, I can't think of much that the Dems are doing that is that bad... other than being pansies, being against guns, being against drug legalization, and supporting deficits. I mean those are some pretty good criticisms of the Dems, how am I toeing the party line? Or is the Democratic Party Line now that guns should be freely available to all responsible adults with only background checks, all drugs should be legalized, and the deficit needs to be destroyed right now?

Other than those things there really isn't much I have to criticize them on, sorry if this makes you feel that I am toeing their line... I mean what am I supposed to do if that's all I disagree with them on?

Perhaps he is referring to Yugoslavia?

What, we dropped candy on the Serbs?

For my own amusement and to try and place the time of the Serbian bombing campaigns I looked it up on Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_war#1991-1999

We bombed the crap out of plenty of people after Somalia.

Let's not forget Haiti, which Clinton was all too prepared to invade for no real reason

Ditto

Clinton falls into 'scatterbrained FP' though. Those things he did really didn't accomplish anything, nor did they seem like they possibly could accomplish anything. You got me on Yugoslavia though, I just meant that the kind of hawk that Kennedy represented (while Eisenhower might have started up the military-industrial complex, Kennedy made us capable of attacking anywhere in the world) really didn't come up much after he died.

I personally think that we should downsize our military while increasing our special forces and espionage, who are less invasive when we use them, but also represent the kind of standing-bestride-hard-and-soft-power thing.

massive love for your avatar.

I met Tony Benn about fifteen years ago, when he was touring with a singer/songwriter called Roy Bailey. They did a lecture/concert series called The Writing On The Wall, that was a socialist history of the UK in song and discussion. One of the best concerts I've ever been to.

How many nations have you been to, that you think discourse in the US is absurdly partisan?


A few things I don't like about the Democratic Party:

- The harassment. I donated to Obama's campaign because I wanted him to win. That does not mean I want to be called by insincere party members about donating to any and every Democratic cause. It seems that contact information is not held in as much confidentiality as with the Republican base.

- Being so timid in standing up for what they believe in. I often feel as though Democrats are too quick to cave under the slightest amount of political pressure and don't adequately represent the will of the people who voted them into office. It comes across as a betrayal of the mandate for action they were given.

- Under-the-table support for fraudulent voter drives. It gives our side of the political aisle a bad name, and pays negligible dividends.


Those are not necessarily unique to the Democratic Party, but they are the things I find most annoying about them.

They're not what they claim they are! They claim to be a "party" and yet they've never thrown a single one for me!

-I'm sorry I couldn't help myself. As to what I don't like about my party it's hard to say, but I could make some statements.

1) I wish they'd punch back a little harder (Ok, ALOT harder) when the Republicans throw foul plays and whine. (E.G. I wish they'd fight for my issues like the Republicans fight for the issues of their party, even just to give them a taste of their own medicine).

2) I wish they'd place their focuss on the middle class a lot more in their issues (and expanding the middle class by reducing the wage gap in America).

3) I wish they'd actually do some research to find out what is effecting young people like me and other democrats and not just jump on the nearest band-wagon of general topic issues the US has been going no-where with for decades.

4) I wish they'd ignore the loud fainting whiners that supported the previous guy we voted out of office by democratic means when they throw temper tantrums and say stupid things.

5) I wish they'd focus the US military policy to defense only for the US and Japan (Japan only by obligation, but if they want their military back, they can have it )

6) I wish they'd focus our culture on a philosophy that US bussiness is US citizens and not US corperations.

7) I wish they'd remember that the people vote them into office and not the rich, so stop acting like they're the customers to please and not us.

7) I wish they'd stop claiming democratic issues then pushing forward republican results.

8) I wish they did what they said after it was said.

9) I wish they weren't politicians.

Of course, I wish all of that wasn't wishful thinking.

Agreed.



Israel is one of the only democracies in the Middle East. I say that we should preserve it instead of handing over concessions to the Muslim theocrats that would inevitably take over if Israel were to collapse.

This is not to say I oppose more rights for the Palestinians; I actually support granting the Palestinians more rights and land. I simply do not see why we need to form a new country to do that, especially since the new country will probably be dominated by religious theocrats.

I see Latin America as a different issue because, unlike with Israel, the United States has traditionally supported dictatorships there. I believe the best way to counter this is to support the Liberation Movements. While I disagree with the Liberation Movements regarding economics, I think that supporting them is necessary if we are to end the perception that the US will always unconditionally support dictators in Latin America.

I don't like that the Republican party is lead by spineless politicians and radical media hosts (Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Hannity.) Where are the conservative thinkers? Where are the philosophers? Where are the voices of reason?

Do we even have such philosophers in this day and age?

I dislike that there is no political party I can identify with.

Perhaps this is the first problem.

Hey, you could describe the leader of the Canadian Liberal Party as a philosopher.

I thought he was a historian.

He's written some political philosophy. One book "The Needs of Strangers" I had to read for poli sci course a few years ago.

Does other nations being more partisan excuse our own politics?

I think the problem with Latinos and the US is that we've traditionally supported capitalism rather than democracy. I've said this before, but if China becomes our ideological enemy then it will be a battle between autocracy and democracy, and we'll finally be able to have our ideology and our goals coincide.

Ron Paul? Just throwing it out there.

If the Republican mantra revolves around ending the Fed and the Department of Education, I will be voting straight Democrat.

In the past, the population was lower, and since generally one needed to be wealthy to engage in science and philosophy, the potential population of "great men" (i.e. geniuses etc.) was far lower. Thus, individuals were more noticeable. Today, the pool of potential individuals is far greater, and thus there are far more scientific geniuses, philosophers, etc. However, those greater numbers have made being a genius etc. more mundane than it once was.



Capitalism and democracy are incompatible. Democracy is the creed that all people are equal and therefore should possess equal political power. Capitalism, on the other hand, involves a concentration of wealth, and thus political power, in the hands of a few elites.

I'd also note that we don't seem to romanticize and celebrate the intellectuals of our societies.

A StephenHawkingBertandRusselAlanTuringAlbertEinsteinNoamChomsky says what?

Late at night, I romanticize Stephen Hawking. Helps me get to sleep.

I'm a liberal Democrat. My general gripes:

- The Race Card: It's used, way, way, way too much. It's ineffective, most of the time flat out wrong, and get's us nowhere. I think I literally groaned at Jimmy Carter's recent statements. There needs to be more recognition that blacks are at this point as responsible for their problems as whites, and for perpetrating them. Obama's approach on this issue has been terrific, in contrast to many other black leaders.

- Foreign Policy: I supported the surge in Iraq, most Democrats were short-sighted on that. Democrats aren't critical enough when we are going to war, but are often too willing to try to cut our losses once it goes badly. Iraq was a terrible idea but now that we're there we have to see it through, same with Afghanistan.

- Health Care: Democrats are trying way too hard to appease private insurance companies. I personally want to tell the private insurance companies to go (*&# themselves.

- Too many support the war on drugs.

- Justifying all government spending these days as a "stimulus". All government spending does create some jobs, the question is how effectively? Is it worth the cost and added deficits?

Noam Chomsky is today's Socrates.

Anyways, suppose I should weigh in. I utterly dislike that my party doesn't allow its constituents to choose the party leader.

You're saying these guys are on the same level as Donald Trump and Richard Branson?

Well, there isn't a independent party.....

....

..... what I didn't like about the Libertarian Party is that I found their policies to be impractical in the real world, and almost completely absent of compassion towards those who are unable to help themselves. I guess working at public housing really made me do a u-turn politically.

There is even significant anti-intellectual sentiment amongst sections of the right (not the left that I can think of, unless "anarcho-"primitivism counts).

I can't say I've met any primitivists. I think I would have to hold back some laughter if I did.