BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

A Real Difference Between Parties?

  
 
PatrickMM
17:43 / 30.04.04
I frequently hear people saying that in the US, there's no real difference between the parties, that they trot out two candidates who say the same thing in different ways and squabble over different issues, until one of them is elected. According to these people, republican or democrat, it doesn't matter. Frequently, you'll hear this from Nader supporters, and others who are allied with fringe parties.

However, I think this view is quite ignorant of what is actually happening in American politics, particularly today. While John Kerry might not lean as left as Nader does, he's certainly not interchangable with Bush. If Gore had become president in 2000, I seriously doubt we'd have ever been involved in the Iraq war, and similarly, we wouldn't have the massive budget deficits that we do now, due to Bush's tax cuts for the rich. People mocked the "lockbox" speech, but it would have made a big difference had it occurred, we would not have these deficits under Gore.

This is probably more pronounced now than it would have been during the 90s, because Bush leans so far to the right. The choice has really become extreme conservative versus centrist, rather than being about left versus right. And, while it's unfortunate that Bush has been able to control the game, framing the issues in his terms, it doesn't mean that just because Kerry isn't that liberal that he's interchangable with Bush.

However, I can see the idea of interchangability to a certain extent. It feels like politics have been framed in such a way that there are about five or six issues that define a candidate's position, and separate the two parties, primarily abortion, gun rights, tax policies, and military spending. In keeping the focus on these issues, it means that candidates can't bring in any policies that would radically alter the type or scope of government activity.
 
 
raelianautopsy
19:10 / 30.04.04
The similarities between the parties far outweigh their diffences.

The extremism of the Bush Administration is a natural outcome of the direction American policies have gone for many years.

John Kerry voted for the Patriot Act and the Iraq war resolution. Now he's against them because he's supposed to be different than Bush, but if he becomes president I really don't see those policies going anywhere.

The few differences between the parties are U.N. internationalism vs. American unilateralism. Maybe their is a lesser evil, but the U.N. approving an unjust war does not make it more just.

As for Al Gore, the only thing different he would have done would have been to raise taxes a little, while Bush cut taxes a little. But Al Gore is also an oilman; his dad, Senator Al Gore Sr., was part of Occidental Oil and when the army sold their oil reserves in the 90s, which was the largest privatization in U.S. history, it was sold to Occidental Oil. The Yugoslavian and Balkan military action of the Clinton administration were over oil. Period. It was over creating the oil pipelines to the Caspian sea.

While the PNAC NeoCons definately control the Bush Administration, you need only look at their website to see how interested they are in the Balkan region to see how much they also influence Democratic policies.

Clinton put us in NAFTA. Now a few Democrats are comming out against it, but the party establishment is not going to make any real changes on free trade.

From the other side of the spectrum, Bush cares even less about illegal immigration than Democrats do. He is supporting the Clinton assualt rifle ban. You don't have to agree or disagree with that, but you must admit that immigration and deroding the Second Ammendment are issues that Republicans are no different that Democrats in.

It seems that politics is a case of Good Cop/Bad Cop. The politicians are going to do what they're going to do, and they just pretend you have a choice by having them 'disagree'.

I pray that a right-wing third party candidate emerges to steal votes from Bush. I'll probibly be voting Libertarian. But if that happens will all of you Anyone But Bush people vote your conscience? If 10% of Democrats voted Green, and 10% of Republicans voted Libertarian, than the history of this country would be changed drastically and the parties would be forced to have integrety to get back those votes.
 
 
Jacrafter
23:19 / 30.04.04
There's one difference between the candidates I can think of offhand. Kerry has nothing in his past to indicate a willingness to set up torture gulags.

Institutionally, the Dems have been taken over by corporatists who think realistically. There are still Progressives within the party, but the corporate wing has effectively marginalized them. The Repubs are corporatists whose anger, paranoia and resentment make them a serious threat to world stability. Their Regressive Caucus mouths platitudes about markets -- while granting favors to crony capitalists, and squeals about morality -- while enjoying the delights of weekends in Las Vegas.

Overriding all the nuance is both parties' subservience to Big Capital. They have none of the integrity of pro-market Libertarians and none of the libertarian commitment to civil rights. They can't embrace Green reforms to protect the environment. The Dems for fear of alienating their big money backers, the Repubs because they reject science(!).

If 10% of Democrats voted Green, and 10% of Republicans voted Libertarian, than the history of this country would be changed drastically and the parties would be forced to have integrety to get back those votes.

Amen.
 
 
gummi
07:26 / 01.05.04
I don't want to hijack the thread, but I think a more important question is why this kind of politics is prevalent in most Western countries.

Conservatives in the UK always talk about "clear blue water" between themselves and the New Labour party. And increasingly, when I look at the politics in France and Germany, I'm struck by the very few differences between the mainstream Right and Left parties. When elections turn on single issues then party affiliations mean very little, from what I've seen.

I think America is a special case. If one tries to be objective about political ideals, what's deemed Left or Liberal over there is really something more akin to a centrist policy with Right-leaning tendencies. A bit like a more conservative form of the Liberal Democrats in the UK. For me, when politics is skewed in this way it's very hard to take it seriously, even though the U.S. president is a 'de facto' world leader.

On the other hand, I do think there is clear difference between Kerry and Bush. Kerry is certainly more of a centrist, but he's also an opportunist and a safe pair of hands, which seems to be the most important attribute for the Democrats, these days.
 
 
Jacrafter
12:00 / 01.05.04
I think a more important question is why this kind of politics is prevalent in most Western countries.

I blame Montesquieu.

Western democracies are all rooted in his philosophy, and they were careful to avoid too big a break with tradition. There's always a legislature that corresponds to lords of some sort and an executive who is much like a king. The democracies are nominal, at best.

Part of that is due to Calvinist hangover. One cannot be respectable without wealth. There's also the assumption that men of property are inherently more responsible because they have more to lose. Mostly, the democracies are designed to ensure a smooth transfer of power amongst the elite. If they don't have to fear death or exile, it considerably reduces their fratricidal tendencies. Yesterday's rulers may rule again if they play their cards right. In theory, that reduces the incentive to kill. In practice, it externalizes it and leads to modified police states.

The Enlightenment philosophers recognized that the consent of the governed was essential for stability. That conclusion was less idealistic than pragmatic. Fear of the mob has always been uppermost in the gentry's minds. Representation gives the illusion of participation. It's carefully managed and hoi polloi are actively discouraged whenever possible -- poll taxes, voter roll purges, restricting the franchise to those who can take time off from work, etc. . . The better democracies subsidize campaign advertising. The worst make sure there's a "means" test in the form of candidate wealth.

School children are taught that democracy in ancient Greece failed because demagogues whipped up mobs. They did, but the mobs were all what we would call "solid" citizens. They were men of property and every bit as rapacious as the average Senator or Congressman.
 
 
gummi
16:17 / 01.05.04
The Enlightenment philosophers recognized that the consent of the governed was essential for stability

Yeah, but I don't think some of them thought this was a good idea, more of a question or puzzlement. And that kind of thinking has been honed over the past few decades, and leads to the point at hand; is there any real difference?

I wonder if the consent you allude to is being shored up, a kind of credit. In which we, as voters, have given more of our consent for the ongoing drift where our choices are basically limited, coalescing around a consensus of what some would call neo-liberalism. In casting a vote we validate the choices and abrogate responsibility and allow the slide to continue. It sure is stable, and boring.

One cannot be respectable without wealth.

I'm really glad you brought this up, because without these ideas I think any kind discussion about the candidates becomes a diversion. I would like to know the percentage of politicians, in any country, who are millionaires. Or, at least stand to benefit monetarily from their service.

On another point. What really gets under my skin is how the polarisation or obvious differences, in the U.S. case, are based upon questions which create ferment and annoyance. On the whole, I see it as a convenient way to marshal forces for change, or animate parts of the electorate. What comes to mind is abortion, that whole can of worms.
 
 
Jacrafter
17:09 / 01.05.04
No, there's no real difference. It's almost impossible for even the most reform minded to stay true once they get into office. The luxuries of fully subsidized living, the perqs of power and the headiness of making decisions affecting people's lives -- all enjoyed free of fear of consequences -- makes assimilation too easy. It's no surprise that job one becomes ensuring job continuity.

I've come to feel that most forms of participation in this scam are akin to criminal collusion, not just abrogation of responsibility. This neoliberal consensus is one of the craziest, most inhumane ideologies I've ever seen. It's murderous economics, rat bastard social engineering and institutionalized plunder. If it weren't beamed into every house with a TV, it would fall apart in months. The high priests would wind up yelling at each other in the psychiatric ward. At least until nurse came along with their medication.

The best ways of fighting this horror are through a gift economy, muckraking the corrupt and their backers and building social networks to provide essential support to "the other 95%". If the mink stole neoliberals can be made less relevant, the suffering they're able to inflict diminishes.
 
 
sine
18:32 / 02.05.04
Choices confuse people. The average American would be much, much happier if the two parties simply amalgamated and ran multiple candidates as the Plutocrats.

Could you imagine? Steam would shoot out of Ralph Nader's ears during the TV debates.
 
 
raelianautopsy
18:53 / 02.05.04
The main problem with American democracy is that it is a winner-takes-all system. There are only two parties, that pretend to be opposites, but they have to be "centrists" to get the other side's voters and eventually they just flow into the same party and idealogie.

It is true that Kerry is the lesser evil as of now, and Bush has been divisive enough to inspire political debate that has been unseen for many years. But Bush's policies are just a continuation of the gradual direction this country has gone for many years. Hopefully if he wins some of the NAFTA and imperialist policies will be reversed, but Kerry is most likely not the answer to the big problem. It is very likely that we will end up like our friends in England and get a "left-wing" candidate that just ends up doing the exact same thing and now you know for sure you have no one to vote for.

What America needs is a parliamentary system where the percentage of votes a party gets determines the amount of offices they will hold. In Europe where they have this, where the system may not be perfect and there is too much socialism, but at least the people are much more represented than Americans are. At least until the European Union controls everything, but that's another topic. Americans need to choose the lesser evil of twenty or thirty parties that have an actual diverse range of political idealogies. Not the lesser evil of TWO parties!

There is no sign that America will ever start a parliamentary system. The only way I see is this happening is if there is a big civil war/world war/revolution and the country is destroyed and built back up again. If things become too bad here maybe that would be a good thing.
 
 
Baz Auckland
18:56 / 02.05.04
Could you imagine? Steam would shoot out of Ralph Nader's ears during the TV debates.

...not that they let him appear on the TV debates...
 
  
Add Your Reply