What is the difference between Democrats and Republicans and what are the similarities?

[Ricky M]

I hesitate to state the differences between the current parties.

I would have had no problem before Trump. But now, the ideas of former leaders of the Republican Party are not acceptable: the ideas of Reagan, Bush, Bush, Bush, Dole, McCain, Romney, Kasick are all too far to the left for the current party. The obvious example is that before Trump, the Republican Party stood for smaller government and lower federal deficits and debt. Now government spending is fine as long the expenditures helps Trump and his allies. A trillion tax cut would have been impossible before Trump.

Also, it is difficult to make believe that the current Republican Party believes in consistent policies, other than whatever Trump states that he wants today. I'm not criticizing; he has the support of 94% of his party. Almost by definition, a transactional politician cannot be pinned down with regard to doctrine.
==========
Until Trump, certainly before 911, the US had a consistent foreign policy, and a domestic party based on compromise. IMO, this worked very well between 1980 and 2000; that is, from Reagan through Bush, Clinton, and Bush Jr. I could also say that I believed the system worked well from 1960 onward, but there were lots of crises in the 60's and 70's, ones that we are still recovering from (especially in the Middle East).
======
We might consider that we once spoke of declining deficits and retiring the debt. Under Eisenhower and Clinton, we even had a couple of years of budget surpluses.

You err in including Reagan. His was the first shot in the class wars, and set in progress the chain of events that now allow Trump to bankrupt this country (not that it wasn't going bankrupt before..).

 

[Ricky M]

Both philosophies have serious flaws -- they each assume a naive view of human nature,

Oh they don't assume it, they exploit it.

 

[grasping the after wind]

Assuming for the moment that both parties want what's best for America but simply have different approaches,

I am not sure that assumption is entirely justified. I think that both parties prioritize their own political power and their being in power is what they consider to be what is best for America.

 

[Halbhh]

The key difference between the Republican and Democratic parties has to be the voters, whom they will support and whom they won't.

I think I have some understanding of this because in 2016 I switched from Democratic to Republican, but I'm usually surprised by the different takes others people have on the same thing.

More or less democratic voters are kinda wanting to have us imperfect humans move closer in government to the ideal of a brotherhood/sisterhood of all -- all the people, a-z, one big family.

To institute that family sharing among all the people, regardless of their apartness and alienation from each other.

What would really take Christ reigning here to accomplish fully or perfectly.

Republicans more or less think we can't do anything like that now, and perhaps we could simplify and say they kinda see us all as evil, and that an evil-acting President is only like any of us....so therefore the lip service from a president is more important than how many laws the president breaks, since we are all law breakers, etc.

There's more on both sides, but these are lately prominent aspects.

 

[MorkandMindy]

To me, the most striking differences between the 2 parties are demographic. Pew Research did a study on this. The link has the details. But it can summarized by describing the archetypal
voter:

Republican: Older white man, living in a rural or exurban area, without a college degree.

Democrat: Younger woman, either white or other race, urbanite, college educated.

These personal differences are the most fundamental ones. The political differences are essentially consequences of these.

Wide Gender Gap, Growing Educational Divide in Voters’ Party Identification

Edited to add: Forgot to include another important characteristic:

Republican: More traditionally religious.

Democrat: Less religious.

That is the position as it stands at present, the history is mostly in the past.

I think it can be further simplified into Middle Class - Democrat, Working Class - Republican, pretty much, the administrative middle class really have to vote Democrat, the technological middle class can go either way.

Hillary lost for a number of reasons but one was her involvement in creating the TPP to move the remaining manufacturing out of the US and over to Asia.

Add to that Bill Clinton's NAFTA and you have the entire working class moving over to the Republicans.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I am not sure that assumption is entirely justified. I think that both parties prioritize their own political power and their being in power is what they consider to be what is best for America.

Assuming that they consider being in power to be a means to do what's right for America, that's reasonable enough. The powerless can do nothing.

If, OTOH, power is all they care about, and they seek it regardless of whether or not America benefits, then we've got a pretty solid argument for kicking in the doors of the government buildings and dragging them to ye olde guillotine... don't you think

 

[grasping the after wind]

Assuming that they consider being in power to be a means to do what's right for America, that's reasonable enough. The powerless can do nothing.

If, OTOH, power is all they care about, and they seek it regardless of whether or not America benefits, then we've got a pretty solid argument for kicking in the doors of the government buildings and dragging them to ye olde guillotine... don't you think

I do not. I see it as a solid argument to educate the voting public in the evils of belonging to political parties.

 

[iluvatar5150]

From what I can see, Republicans seem to be motivated almost entirely by winning at the expense of everything else, including ethics; their policy ideas are completely divorced from reality and there doesn't seem to be much desire to modify them to hew to reality. For Dems, the same seems to only be partly true. Within Democratic ranks, there's still a sizable contingent of folks with a strong desire for real, evidence-based policy and, at least so far, they don't seem inclined to excuse every Democratic wrongdoing.

 

[grasping the after wind]

From what I can see, Republicans seem to be motivated almost entirely by winning at the expense of everything else, including ethics; their policy ideas are completely divorced from reality and there doesn't seem to be much desire to modify them to hew to reality. For Dems, the same seems to only be partly true. Within Democratic ranks, there's still a sizable contingent of folks with a strong desire for real, evidence-based policy and, at least so far, they don't seem inclined to excuse every Democratic wrongdoing.

But your not biased in any way I suppose.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I do not. I see it as a solid argument to educate the voting public in the evils of belonging to political parties.

And assuming they get that education... what then?

 

[iluvatar5150]

But your not biased in any way I suppose.

Not really, no. I don't have any particular love for the Democratic party and, in fact, I think I probably share more baseline ideals and sensibilities with traditional conservatives than I do with traditional liberals. But at least right now, the Republican party has been entirely overrun by the kooky, dogmatic, sycophantic fringe (though I suppose they're not the fringe anymore) whereas in the Democratic camp, it's at least a mixed bag. You're going to have a tough time convincing me otherwise when the entire Republican party is drooling over somebody as glorious inept as Trump while spouting dogma that's patently false and promoting policies that were debunked ages ago.

 

[jayem]

I do not. I see it as a solid argument to educate the voting public in the evils of belonging to political parties.

Agree. The 2 major parties--and their hyper-competitive struggles to "win"--is the primary cause of the almost tribalstic political division in this country. Compromise becomes nearly impossible. And there are no winners. Everyone loses.

Which is why in a different thread, I posed a way to choose Presidential candidates that minimizes the power of political parties (and their unholy spawn, political "bases") in the nomination process.

 

[Kaon]

If, OTOH, power is all they care about, and they seek it regardless of whether or not America benefits, then we've got a pretty solid argument for kicking in the doors of the government buildings and dragging them to ye olde guillotine... don't you think

Americans would never do this, we are to busy fighting each other and satisfying our own prejudices.

The fact that the next American civil war hasn't happened yet is not because of a lack of prejudice, it is because perhaps certain programs work too well to make citizens compliant and impotent.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I am currently voting republican. I have a strong libertarian streak however.

I am for fiscal responsibility, lower government regulations, I take a more isolationist position concerning foreign policy, however with a very large protect our troops if we are going to be overseas anyway streak, I believe in the free market but believe in some degree of protectionism if other countries aren't playing by the same rules. I am absolutely 100% against globalisation and believe if we are going to be a welfare state we must necessarily control immigration...

I am pretty much against everything that democrats and neocons are for..

I have no earthly idea what I have in common with democrats anymore. Pretty much nothing is my current assessment.

 

[Halbhh]

I am currently voting republican. I have a strong libertarian streak however.

I am for fiscal responsibility, lower government regulations, I take a more isolationist position concerning foreign policy, however with a very large protect our troops if we are going to be overseas anyway streak, I believe in the free market but believe in some degree of protectionism if other countries aren't playing by the same rules. I am absolutely 100% against globalisation and believe if we are going to be a welfare state we must necessarily control immigration...

I am pretty much against everything that democrats and neocons are for..

I have no earthly idea what I have in common with democrats anymore. Pretty much nothing is my current assessment.

Actually I agree with all of that with the following extras:
I think it's strongly in our interest to have strong public schools and good childhood nutrition for the poor (educated and well nourished children are significantly less likely to become criminals).
and
As a believer I hear the direct, clear commandments that prohibits us to discriminate against the foreigner seeking refuge here:
As before: Leviticus 19:34 You must treat the foreigner living among you as native-born and love him as yourself, for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt. I am the LORD your God.
and now:
Matthew 7:12 In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law and the Prophets.

and forever.

So, as a matter of faith, 'not my will, but thine' I hear and listen, and also it's not very hard for me in that I lived some in El Paso when young, and also later had a close friend in Austin that had quite a variety of immigrants as friends, and it was easy for me to get to know even more latin and other immigrants face to face, as persons. Persons just like you and me. (very unlike how Trump at times tries to make them seem bad people.)

So, from both experience knowing they are generally people just like me and you, and also hearing the word of the Lord, I will love them as myself, and will not politically support deporting them, which would directly disobey God's word to us.

 

[Albion]

...I believe in the free market but believe in some degree of protectionism if other countries aren't playing by the same rules.

I am glad that you made this point. I realized after I put up my post that I should have included this as well but failed to do so. Critics often say that Trump is not carrying on traditional Republican policies, including free trade. But that neglects to take account of the fact that with these trade arrangements he has been working on, the "free trade" WAS NOT ACTUALLY FREE TRADE.

It was trade that was tilted strongly towards the other country or countries at the expense of the American producers. His intentions were to put pressure on the other countries SO THAT THEY WOULD BRING THEIR POLICIES INTO BALANCE, i.e. Free Trade as Free Trade is supposed to function.

In other words, what he did is not against Free Trade but something done in hopes of restoring Free Trade!

 

[Kenny'sID]

The following is on conditions since the election.

Democrats say Republicans are bad and Republicans generally ignore them because they are not nearly as insecure as Democrats.

Democrats don't return meanness/hatefulness and vindictiveness with the same, but to their discredit, they do have to laugh at Dems on occasion, ok they laugh a lot, who could possibly help themselves.

Republicans work to better the Country, Dems do nothing but try to tear it down, and in the case of this time around, they really have done nothing but that.

I have little doubt the Republicans would have taken a win by Hillary with a lot more class than the Democrats have...a whole lot more.

What do Republicans have in common with Dems? Nothing...thank goodness.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Actually I agree with all of that with the following extras:
I think it's strongly in our interest to have strong public schools and good childhood nutrition for the poor (educated and well nourished children are significantly less likely to become criminals).
and
As a believer I hear the direct, clear commandments that prohibits us to discriminate against the foreigner seeking refuge here:
As before: Leviticus 19:34 You must treat the foreigner living among you as native-born and love him as yourself, for you were foreigners in the land of Egypt. I am the LORD your God.
and now:
Matthew 7:12 In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law and the Prophets.

and forever.

So, as a matter of faith, 'not my will, but thine' I hear and listen, and also it's not very hard for me in that I lived some in El Paso when young, and also later had a close friend in Austin that had quite a variety of immigrants as friends, and it was easy for me to get to know even more latin and other immigrants face to face, as persons. Persons just like you and me. (very unlike how Trump at times tries to make them seem bad people.)

So, from both experience knowing they are generally people just like me and you, and also hearing the word of the Lord, I will love them as myself, and will not politically support deporting them, which would directly disobey God's word to us.

I agree good education for our children is essential, and also good nutrition.

Where I differ with you is on the foreigners. First, your using biblical commands for the nation-state of Israel and trying to extrapolate those commands to the United States.

I don't see that as being able to be done, as we aren't in the nation-state of Israel, which was never a welfare state in any event, and it was a state God Himself dissolved. We now live as Christians in secular societies, therefore our outlook is necessarily different from Old Testament Israel's government.

So as I see it. If we allow everyone who wanted to be here, offering them free public education, food stamps, housing and medical care, we would cease to be a nation in a day because it would absolutely break us. We can't hardly afford the programs we have for those who are here and citizens, and there are still homeless and those who fall through the cracks.

At our current 20 trillion dollar debt, which will cost in excess of $60,000.00 from every man, woman and child who lives here to pay off, we simply can't afford to take in just anyone anymore.

If we can employ a large degree of fiscal responsibility and pay off our debt (being in hock to foreign powers truly worries me) and work on necessities in fixing our infrastructure (think poisonous water in Flint, Michigan and more) and address certain issues such as our homeless (I don't believe in stepping over the bodies of our citizens in order to help foreigners, our people come first) then we can once again take in a greater number of foreigners..

I say this not a someone who doesn't understand immigration, as I am a first generation U.S. citizen, (or first generation immigrant, however you want to say it - I was the first generation of my family born here).. but as someone who absolutely sees an issue with our economics, at current moment.

I was however one of the very few who believed the bailout was unethical as it was absolutely irresponsible - however both parties at the time supported it.

Now, we have to pay for it.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Americans would never do this, we are to busy fighting each other and satisfying our own prejudices.

The fact that the next American civil war hasn't happened yet is not because of a lack of prejudice, it is because perhaps certain programs work too well to make citizens compliant and impotent.

Of course -- America's leading "industry" has always been bread and circuses.

 

[ThatRobGuy]

The big similarities are that they'll bank on people employing the "lesser of two evils" logic in the voting booth, and that they'll claim to fix "a problem" that they know they can't fix in order to win the support of people who care deeply about that issue.

For instance, democrats will make healthcare and income inequality cornerstones of their platform, and republicans will do the same for abortion and gun rights (knowing full well that that status quo for any of those subjects won't be changed in any of our lifetimes)

The big difference I see is the level of cult-like worship of a political figure coming from members of the GOP.

While there certainly were of a lot of Obama "fan boys" during his administration, the level of that I see with Trump supporters seems to exceed that.

Die hard Trump supporters will seemingly turn on a dime based on what Trump's opinion of the day is. People who applauded certain Trump appointees will turn on them the moment Trump does.

That leads me to believe that people are looking to Trump to tell them what "good" and "bad" is.