What’s the difference between a Republican and a Democrat?
No, that’s not the lead-in to a joke.
It’s the question that was asked of Senator Everett Dirkson in this 1967 video. He gives a pretty good (and still relevant) answer, I think, although many Republicans erred by violating his first principle during the administration of George Bush:
[Hat tip: Ann Althouse.]
I’m not a member of any organized political party — I’m a Democrat.
— Will Rogers
A man was traveling in a hot air balloon to an appointment when he discovered he was lost. He let some air out of his balloon and dropped down until he could see a woman walking along the sidewalk below him. He shouted out to her, “Hello, can you tell me where I am?”
She looked up at him and said, “Well, you are at about 49 degrees 30 minutes North latitude, about 123 degrees 30 minutes West longitude, and you are about 30 feet above the ground in a balloon.”
He said, “You must be a Republican.”
She said, “Why, yes, how did you know?”
He said, “Because, while the information you have given me is no doubt correct, it does nothing to help me and now, because of you, I am going to be late for my meeting.”
She said, “You must be a Democrat.”
He said, “Why yes, how did you know?”
She said, “Because you don’t know where you are, you don’t know where you are going, you have risen into your present predicament largely on hot air, you have made promises that you can’t hope to fulfill, and now you blame me for your problems.”
Those were the days, the 1960’s, when Illinois had two great senators — Everett Dirksen and Paul Douglas. Dirksen was key in breaking the Southern Democrat filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — in those “filibuster” was, rightly, a bad word. Douglas was a Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago when, in the middle of WW II, he pulled strings to enlist in the Marines as a combat soldier — he was 50 — and was wounded in Pacific combat. Today, there are few senators that can even begin to compare with these guys.
We should do well to return to Sen. Dirksen’s definition of what it means to be a Republican.
Beleive it or not, the fundamental difference is in economic policy–all other policy flows from that. The Republicans believe in the free market and clasical liberalism the Dems believe in marx.
Watch this interview with Milton Freidman.
FireThemAll,
Yes. The problem is that the Republicans, while believing in the free market, have not the first clue of what kind of fight they are in to defend it. And leave off the free market–it goes way deeper than that. We’re not just talking about a free market. We’re needing to defend and preserve a free society.
Well, OK, maybe they know they are in a fight. But they keep seeming to think that the way to win it is to surrender.
We must co-opt this party. Opposing it will fail
I keep on being unable to understand, except that someone once said that in Washington we have the evil party and the stupid party. Guess which is which.
To “resist the constant incursions of the federal government into the liberties of the people.”
That about says it.
The democrats are not Marxists. The democrats believe in free market principals. Just not for healthcare. Is this such a difficult concept to grasp?
“”The democrats are not Marxists. The democrats believe in free market principals. Just not for healthcare. Is this such a difficult concept to grasp?””
Simon
Prisons are full of people who “believe” in Jesus too. It makes zero sense to say you believe in free markets while actually pushing wealth redistribution. Which is like saying you believe in freedom but slavery is acceptable from January 1st through May 15th.
National debt, as a percentage of GDP, declined steadily from the end of WWII, regardless of the party of the President, until the end of the Carter administration. This trend reversed with debt rising dramatically under Reagan and G.H.W. Bush. Once more it declined under Clinton, only to return to its climb under George W. Bush. Having been in office for just over a year, and having had to take on the national implications of the global recession, which many consider a legacy of the policies of his predecessor, Obama and the Dems can hardly be either credited or blamed for our current deficit position … yet.
Similarly, if one looks at the Patriot Act and other neo-con backed legislation it is difficult to assert with a straight face that Republicans favor the personal freedom and liberties of the people as opposed (supposedly) to the Dems. And both parties seem quite happy to allow the corporate business community the freedom to do whatever they damn well please, individual citizens need not apply for similar protections.
I am not enamored of Obama and find both major parties problematic, however it is self satisfied partisan nonsense to keep asserting these tired old myths about “tax & spend” liberal Dems running up the debt, while claiming Pubs have been “fiscally conservative”.
Unfortunately, this is one more example of the right preferring a good sounding sound bite contradicted by the actual data.
Chris, while I will happily concur that both parties are lacking in fiscal responsibility, there is no question that claiming the PotUS is responsible for spending is ludicrous.
Everyone knows that Congress is the one that sets the budget, and the PotUS is limited to his capacity to veto some or all of it.
That said, the Dems were in charge under Reagan and Bush I, the GOP for most of Clinton and Bush II’s first part, and the Dems again since 2006.
It is also undebatable that one of the reasons why the Dems began winning again in 2006 was that the GOP was, despite having the majority, spending like Dems (well, “old style” Dem… the new bunch is creating a new distinction for insane spending policies) — in short, the GOP under Bush II wasn’t setting its budgets responsibly.
Further, it has long been recognized that there are several looming fiscal problems, namely, Social Security and Medicare. Every effort to approach resolving these problems has been dealt with by GOP-dominated action, not by Dem-dominated action, and, in each case, the Dems were at best obstructionist.
(Also note — the latest round of Medicare idiocy WAS supported by the GOP, so do not think I am letting them off the hook. And even the most casual review of political opinion finds that one reason for the backlash against the GOP in 2006 was their support of such fiscal idiocies).
Instead, the Dems have twice attempted to force through yet another SS/Medicare type boondoggle spending program through in the form of Federal Health Care. They can’t get the first two right, hey, what the heck, let’s make yet ANOTHER irresponsible spending commitment!!
And finally, the notion that the “national debt” declined under Clinton is either a prevarication on your part or a foolish stupidity, depending on if you’re ignorant or just a lying SoS. The so-called “reductions” in the debt under Clinton were nothing but a blatant accounting trick tied to the misuse of Social Security funds to make it appear as though the budget deficits went down by switching to alternate funds. It’s like claiming he put less money onto the credit cards because he paid off more (but still charged a net increase) onto the cards, by taking out a home equity loan. It was crap, and anyone with a clue KNOWs this. So what are you — a liar or a fool?
Q.E.D., your comparison is specious, your reasoning faulty, and the conclusion inescapable: Dems are inveterate over-spenders, The GOP isn’t as good on fiscal responsibility as one might hope but is generally a major improvement regardless — as the latest round of Dem-zero-spending-control is showing.
Oh, and you might recall the legacy recession Bush got from Clinton when you start throwing THAT claim around. Not in the same arena as the current one, but it wasn’t trivial, especially after 911 threw it into high gear.
The distinction was, Bush did the thing which has worked to increase the economy time after time — he cut taxes.
Obama refuses to do this, even though it’s the only know tactic that actually works.
While I did spend some time and attention offering comments here on Neo’s blog for a while, as it has become all Obama bashing all the time [and you guys talk about BDS] it has become increasingly obvious that any attempt to argue with or even question the Myths of the Right are doomed to ridicule, insults, and nitpicking. I suspect I will not bother again very soon. The FACTS of national debt as a % of GDP contradict the meme of the GOP being the party of fiscal restraint and the Dems always being the Tax & Spend crowd.
And the whole “lower taxes” as the one and only answer to all economic questions is so naive, simplistic, and just plain wrong as to be laughable. If it were any sort of an absolute then NO taxes whatsoever would be the only logical choice for any nation. When you can show where that has ever worked, then maybe it would be worth considering. Until then the issue is optimizing taxes … in terms of amount and who or what gets taxed. Only fools and liars think otherwise. That being the case both Dems and Pubs get lost trying to target taxes to help their supporters and hurt their political adversaries rather than making decisions that might benefit the nation as a whole.
Chris White: nice straw man.