h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: How to Tell if You're a Democrat or a Republican in the USA - A3736668
Author: Jodan - What's that green stuff on the lawn? - U201497

Idears?

Having swiftly scanned through...

I realise that I'm really off the ball today, I admit that.
You talk about Republicans and Democrats, then you talk about Liberal and Conservative but you don't link them with the previous two words. I know it's kind of obvious but might be worth looking at and saying "If you agree with these views then you are..." You know?

I can't really add that much to the entry as a whole because I'm not from the US, however I'm watching this with high interest

Kat

Y'know, you're right? I intended to sort of say that the Republicans were the liberals, but they're now the conservatives and then that the Democrats were the conservatives but now the liberals, but I really didn't do that very clearly.

Anything that's unclear because you're not from the US? Politics is a hobby of mine (yeah, I guess you could call it that.), so I fear I might have assumed some things that a casual observer might not know. That and my fear of a bias (I'm a Democrat. I tried very hard not to be biased) are why this is in the CWW, and not PR.

Hey there Jodan! Glad to see you're still carrying on.

Some notes on your very interesting piece:

[It’s simply a fact of life of being a citizen of the United States. As a citizen, almost everyone can identify themselves as being a Democrat or a Republican.]

In an article dated 09/03/2003, 42% of Americans considered themselves “Republicans” and 33% considered themselves “Democrats.”

-- This article appears in the American Daily; http://www.americandaily.com/article/3449

A November,2004, New York Times poll reported that "More Americans consider themselves Democrat (36%) as opposed to Republican (29%). This has been consistently true for at least the last twelve years. A plurality (over 40%) consider themselves moderate, over 30% consider themselves conservative, and about 20% consider themselves liberal.

-- This is from a blog, quoting the NYT, at: http://inmyroom.omnihosts.net/blog/000198.html

This suggests that a good quarter of the American voters either identify with a different party, or consider themselves to be independents.

Excluding them is fine, for the purposes of your piece; but they should be acknowledged as a sizable chunk.

Then, of course, you have both conservatives and liberals in each party. This suggests that conservatism or liberalism is not so much a function of 'party' as it is issue related. The same goes for attitudes towards government size and taxation. Just look at what the current president is planning on both issues. Very big government and high taxation.

Perhaps, as you mentioned, they are about to switch sides again.

[Hoover represented a number of Republican politicians who valued principles over the good of the people.]

This is, perhaps, a bit unfair. He may not have seen this as an issue of one or the other. If this is a quote from his memoirs or something, I missed it.

[and George HW Bush asked voters to read his lips - ‘no new taxes’.]

Is 'George HW Bush' a typo? It's traditional to put a period after the middle initial, if it stands for a middle name. See John F. Kennedy later in your piece.

[Democrats are more keen to raise taxes to deal with any problems that may crop up.]

It may be more fundamental than this. Raising taxes to deal with problems, especially financial and societal problems, is a form of wealth redistribution. Republicans see this as bad, Democrats view it as worthwhile. The historical facts are that no nation has survived that did not have sufficient redistribution of wealth mechanisms. Without them, nations like Rome fell, and the French had their revolts to deal with (Louis XIV, for example). Also, let's not forget the Boston Tea Party and the subsequent revolution that formed the U.S.

[Republicans think that if there isn’t much government, society left alone can work out its own problems.]

And they also prefer to think that businesses are kind, benevolent and trustworthy. They want to reduce the number of laws and restrictions on trade that were forced into place by businesses who would make business decisions that ignored public safety, occupational safety, and fiscal responsibility. The meat inspection laws are a very good example.

You might mention that the Democrats are traditionally perceived as pro-union, while the Republicans are perceived as pro-business. Businesses would love to eliminate unionism, and they foster the idea that the concept is outdated and unnecessary. Sweatshops have not yet been eliminated, and many businesses are as cutthroat and bottom-line oriented as they ever were, and would rather be free to squeeze any last bit of cost out of any process, despite the human effect. Many people do not yet make a 'living wage', and multiple income families are becoming the norm, simply for survival.

Your 'For instance', BTW, is a very good example, but the additional impetus for social programs is that solving social problems reduces costs on the government that at least partially offset the spending. Worsening conditions of the lower strata is what foments revolution and violence.

It can certainly be argued that current programs are ill-conceived, suffer design defects, are ineffective, or even counter-productive; but that's another problem entirely.

The bottom line is that societies were formed to protect them against predators, especially other societies. Societies left to work out their problems almost always ends up with the strong ruling, and often terrorizing the weak.

As usual, feel free to ignore anything offered here.

BTW, I love your 'Stupid Reasons'. The only one I would add is 'because daddy was'.

I also love the quotes. The missing one that comes to mind is about 'If you want to live like a Republican, vote Democratic', but I cannot remmember the source.

On a side note; The issue of federalism seems to center on the soverienty of the states. The idea is that they are all separate entities that have merely agreed to work together for their common welfare on certain overlapping needs (defense, etc.); thus the name United States of America.

This is, by now, obviously vestigal at best, and largely unnecessary. Their people and governments are so inextricably connected that it makes little sense any longer for people moving from one state to another, or doing business across state lines, to have to learn entirely new blocks of laws in order to function. It is also contrary to the public good when it comes to things like crime-fighting, licensing, and business relationships.

It would probably be best if the states just dropped the whole sovereignty issue. It needn't change the structure of the representative governments, just streamline communications and commerce. As it is, they constantly fight to get a larger share of federal dollars. The resultant savings might actually pay for some of those social programs, too.

I believe that what Americans have lost is the knowledge that their's is supposed to be a government of, by, and for the people. Listening to politicians, one might think that the government is supposed to be about religion, prinicples, economics, business, nuclear power, defense, or spreading democracy.

Thanks again for writing this one. Looks like a keeper to me.

I'm not familiar with the American Daily, but it looks like a conservative outlet. Of course the New York Times is Liberal.

Conventional knowledge at election time says that higher turnout benefits the Democrats.

Also, I would say that the sizable chunk you allude to wouldn't necessarily be 'Indepedents'. They might just be 'non-politicals'. I'll have to add a sentence in the intro dealing with these points.

"This is, perhaps, a bit unfair. He may not have seen this as an issue of one or the other. If this is a quote from his memoirs or something, I missed it."

You're probably right. Interfering with the economy and helping the people aren't quite the same thing. I'll amend that section

"Is 'George HW Bush' a typo?"

No, that's h2g2 style for you. We're not supposed to put a period in abbreviations.

"wealth redistribution"

That's a really good point. The Democrats do consider themselves to be the party of the Middle Class after all. I've added that and a bit about business and unions.

"BTW, I love your 'Stupid Reasons'. The only one I would add is 'because daddy was'."

Sadly, that makes up a lot more minds than it should. But it's been added.

That was a very helpful post. Thanks
I used enough of your words and ideas that I think you deserve a credit FT, if you'd like one. Would you?

Hey there, researcher Jodan!

Thanks for the kind words. You're probably right about the leanings of the two publications. I don't read either, but just got curious about the percentages. You are correct that the 25% (+/- 10%) don't necessarily identify themselves with either party; but then, many who do identify themselves with a party don't vote anyway. Suffice it to say that the 'unidentified' are not in either camp. (Count me among them.)

The offer of credit is appreciated, but entirely unnecessary; that's what Peer Review is for, after all. You did the work, and the research. Don't bother adding me. I'm not into the numbers or credit thing.

There was one more salient point that I'd meant to add, but it has escaped me for the moment. In the words of the Republican Governor of California, "I'll be back".

There is the possibility of using the terms: Republicrat and Democrican; only if it fits, of course.

Hi again:

While trying to recapture my lost point I noticed that 6 paragraphs after stating "The fundamental difference between the parties is Federalism, ...", you start a paragraph saying "One of the major fundamental differences between Republicans and Democrats is ..."

Just a case of stating "THE fundamental ..." in one case, indicating that there exists only one fundamental difference, and then adding others later. You might change the first one to "One critical fundamental difference between ...", or the second with "One of the crucial differences between Republicans and Democrats is ..." Other choices exist.

Another voluntary change to consider is to spell out the paragraph preceding the Economics section; something like:

Democrats believe in wealth redistribution (stimulating the economy by helping the poor who will spend the money, raising demand; in which case it all goes back to businesses in the way of revenue, pays salaries to employees, and flows back to the investors from the increased profits) to help build a strong middle class. The Republicans generally oppose this. They think this hurts the economy, and use trickle-down economics (which is giving tax breaks to the rich in hopes that they'll invest in industries and salaries on the chance that demand will increase) instead.


Probably easier to follow would be to state
"Democrats believe in wealth redistribution to stimulate the economy and help build a strong middle class." (flow up economics). The Republicans generally oppose this. They think this hurts the economy, and believe that investors drive the economy (trickle-down economics). Both are discussed in the next section."

And then follow it with;

"Flow up economics stimulates the economy by helping the lower classes who will spend the money (they cannot afford to hang onto it, they're poor), raising demand; in which case it all goes back to businesses in the form of revenue, pays salaries to employees, and flows back to the investors from the increased profits) to help build a strong middle class. Trickle-down economics focuses on giving tax breaks to the rich in hopes that they'll invest in industries and salaries on the chance that demand will increase as a result of the investments."

Neither party has a lock on personal wealth, but it seems obvious to me that the rich don't get rich by throwing money at social problems. They increase wealth by guarding all assets, income, and investments, hoarding as much as they can (even if they assuage guilt by acting philanthropic with some portion at come time). The poor and middle-class do not have the luxury of being able to decide whether or not to spend their money. Most Americans are under-invested, and have dangerously low savings levels. They spend every extra buck they get.

It would seem to me (on a personal note) that Up-flow is a guaranteed stimulant to the economy, and that Trickle-down relies on the largesse and risk-taking nature of the rich. Most rich, I suspect, just add any tax savings to their personal bottom line.

If you were to give $5,000 USD to each of the poorest 10% of Americans, I guarantee that inside of three months 95% of the monies would be used on economy stimulating demand pressures. I would bet that a good portion would go to food stores and fast-food restaurants, a similar portion to small consumer goods and clothing, Some would undoubtedly go for housing, paying down debts that would otherwise become uncollectible, used vehicles to allow return to work, child-care, and a very sizable chunk for health-care. It gets spread out to the areas that need stimultion the most, and starts the stimulation on the local level.

Stimulating demand in this fashion would increase production producing sales taxes, which would mandate new hires with taxable incomes, which would make companies more profitable with resultant business taxes, and raise dividends for the investors at the appropriate Capital Gains rate.

Give the same total USD to the rich and they'll invest it in whatever will make the most money. This may be foreign money markets, foreign manufacturing, purchase of high end, no stimulus products like DeBeers diamonds or gold, luxury goods, and any stimulation that does result will never reach those who are most in need.

Either method helps the rich, but only flow-up helps every economic level.

In the section Liberalism vs. Conservatism, I'd explain a little about "gun rights". The U.S. constitution guarantees certain gun rights, and few liberals are against the concept. What liberals seem to want (in most cases), is limiting the types of weapons covered to those used for hunting and protecting one's homeland from invaders. This is the idea of the militia mentioned. What they seem to be against is homeowners packing bazookas, flame-throwers, grendades, semi-automatic weapons, and other military-type gear. Most (certainly not all) favour handguns, but simply want them registered because of their concealability and prevalance in murders and fatal accidents.

There is not a constitutional right that I can remember that doesn't have some limitation, even that of free speech. It's simply a matter of defining the limits of the government, and that's what the constitution was supposed to provide. It's people who have required the legislative and judicial branches to further refine definitions and limitations, to meet the propensity of people to exercise their rights in abusive or dangerous ways.

HEY! I just remembered that point I was looking for!!

I thought it of potential value to mention the concentration of Democratic votes emanating from cities where eduction levels are high, and Republican votes emanating from rural and Bible-belt areas where cultures are less diverse and formal education less of a focus. It may be that more knowledge and formal training of the way the world really works tends to make one favour the Democratic views on taxation, economics, etc.

As always, take what you like and ditch the rest.

See this is why I posted first and then got quiet I can't do this sort of thing...at least not for this entry, however I'm still here ready to read the finished thing.

I'm not an economist, but you sold me
Yeah, trickle-down never made much sense to me, but you have to make the entry balanced. I've added your two paragraphs on economics, and clarified gun rights somewhat.

I'd like to add something about Rural versus Urban Politics, but I'd be a bit hesistant of saying that higher education leads to people becoming Democrats (even if Karl Rove said it) because it's also a stereotype. It's probably statistically true, but I don't want people taking it to imply that Democrats are smart and Republicans are dumb.

I absolutely agree. In fact, it may be the other way around anyway. Perhaps people who have Democratic type tendencies gravitate to cities, and those with Republican type tendencies yearn for a simpler life style.

I don't think you can make a true 'intelligence' case for either side. First, both sides appear lacking; and, Second, I'm sure there are farmers with a high IQ but no interest in academia (we know there are college grads who shouldn't be trusted with a shovel).

Good luck with whatever you choose to include!

I think it's rather specious to say that all parties outside of the major two are "excluded from the political process". That may well be true in Ohio, but is not universally true throughout the country. There are several states (and many more cities and counties) in the US where Libertarians or Greens routinely win seats of one sort or another. And I think most Americans are incredibly aware (especially since 2000) of the very important role independent, Libertarian, and Green voters play during presidential elections.

In that vein, there are some characteristics that you attribute to one of the major parties, but are in truth much more closely aligned with one of the third parties.

And in today's political climate, I don't think you can consider an entry on Democrat v Republican complete without using the phrase "family values". For an increasingly large chunk of the country, where they stand on the "family values" related issues is *the* defining criteria for how they vote -- not the economy.

Likewise, attitudes towards war and militarization, how isolationist we should be -- these play incredibly vital roles in people's decisions as to which party to identify with.

Also worth emphasizing is that identifying yourself as Dem vs Rep is not the same at all as *voting* as Dem vs Rep. Every election has a significant number of crossovers, and such crossovers were probably the deciding factor in our most recent presidential election -- a pretty noticeable chunk of registered Democrats voted Dem down the party line on every ballot item *except* president.

I believe the line you're referring to "excluded from the political process" was preceded by words to the effect of "these people will be excluded from this entry, just as they are". It was an attempt at humor. Those don't always seem to work for me, because I find myself having to explain them in threads like these fairly often. Maybe I should heed that "Don't try too hard to be funny" one in the Writing-Guidelines

I thought it was funny, anyway

"In that vein, there are some characteristics that you attribute to one of the major parties, but are in truth much more closely aligned with one of the third parties."

Like anti-governmentalism being Republican and Libertarian? I'm not writing an entry about third parties, but I do see your point. How does including a list of links at the end to third party sites explaining their platform sound?

"For an increasingly large chunk of the country, where they stand on the "family values" related issues is *the* defining criteria for how they vote -- not the economy."

Yeah, that's certainly a trend lately. But if I wrote this during one of the lamer presidential election cycles, we might find a whole section on flag-burning or reference to God in the Pledge of Allegiance.

"Likewise, attitudes towards war and militarization, how isolationist we should be -- these play incredibly vital roles in people's decisions as to which party to identify with."

It would be hard to write a section on Foreign Policy, I think, because diplomatic methods depend on the candidate and the platform depends on the issues of the day. The isolationist point, I think is somewhat valid, at least historically, but there hasn't been much of a voice of isolationism for a long time, and I expect there won't be for a while in a post-9/11 world.

Now, I believe it is the official policy of both parties that war should be a last option. I don't know how much room there is for distinction there, really, without delving into the hazy world of personal opinion.

"Also worth emphasizing is that identifying yourself as Dem vs Rep is not the same at all as *voting* as Dem vs Rep."

Agreed. Will do.

I don't have a computer right now, but I expect one tomorrow, so I'll try to make these changes then.

I would say that we've had more than just a presidential election cycle or two where "family values" have been an issue -- it goes back several decades now, although it has become more prominent over time.

Overall, I might explain the dichotomization of Dems and Reps over moral issues by stating something like:

"While the idea of 'legislating' morality is often attributed to the Republican Party, it actually occurs on both sides of the aisle. In general, the Republican party tends to legislate 'negative morality' (i.e., don't do this) and the Democratic party tends to push 'positive morality' (i.e., you should be doing this). An example would be the Republican stance against abortion, and the Democratic stance in favor of expanding contraceptive availability, both of which are heavily grounded in the moralities of the respective parties."

For the war issue, I think the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans comes down to whether the US, as a world power, should have the right to force its diplomatic might on the world. The Democratic view tends to be that the US is one country among many in the UN, and that we need to work with our allies to achieve our diplomatic goals, even if this takes longer. The Republican view tends to be that first priority needs to be looking after our own security and economic interests, and that we don't have the obligation to fully engage in the diplomatic process if it is significantly hindering those interests.

Added a bit to the very beginning and the very end

Ok, I caved in and added a (very weak) paragraph on abortion and the death penalty. I'm about ready to put this in PR. What do y'all reckon?