The Unofficial But Kind of Official US Pawliticks Thread

[MadMojoMonkey]

Start listing off policies and you'll see that they share similarities on only a small number of things.

They're opposites on almost every social issue you can find and they're opposites on the majority of economic issues. This trope of sameness is some kind of crazy phenomenon

I strongly disagree with this assessment. Just because polarizing language is used to describe something, that doesn't make the something a polarized issue.

E.g. both parties want to create jobs, they just disagree about what is the best way to do so. Both want to ensure that sick people are treated with dignity and care, they just disagree about how it should be financed. Both want to provide perks and stability to their constituencies, which are ultimately the same people. Both parties want to strengthen the American dollar and promote worldwide economic stability... etc.

[surviva316]

I strongly disagree with this assessment. Just because polarizing language is used to describe something, that doesn't make the something a polarized issue.

E.g. both parties want to create jobs, they just disagree about what is the best way to do so. Both want to ensure that sick people are treated with dignity and care, they just disagree about how it should be financed. Both want to provide perks and stability to their constituencies, which are ultimately the same people. Both parties want to strengthen the American dollar and promote worldwide economic stability... etc.

These aren't policy.

[wufwugy]

I strongly disagree with this assessment. Just because polarizing language is used to describe something, that doesn't make the something a polarized issue.

E.g. both parties want to create jobs, they just disagree about what is the best way to do so. Both want to ensure that sick people are treated with dignity and care, they just disagree about how it should be financed. Both want to provide perks and stability to their constituencies, which are ultimately the same people. Both parties want to strengthen the American dollar and promote worldwide economic stability... etc.

The examples you give are not of the polarizing language you suggest, but of uniform language yet with antithetical policies underneath them. You kinda just made my point that the parties are indeed very different.

Honestly, do the exercise: list policies and platforms of each party. You'll find they're worlds apart. Let's just take a look at three large issues that have gotten a ton of play in the last four years

1. Employment growth - On this the Dems pushed for fiscal stimulus while the Rethugs pushed for tax cuts, public sector employment cuts, and nothing. "Nothing" is important because when the Repubs haven't been obstructing the Dems and the economy, they have been spending the rest of their time (most of their time) on ridiculous anti-abortion bills, anti-minority bills, and stuff like what we should call certain Holidays. The parties could not be more different on employment issues

2. The national debt and deficit - The Dems have pushed for reforming growth in costs of Medicare, reforming growth in equipment the military doesn't even want, and raising taxes on the wealthy. The Repubs, however, have pushed for budget cuts to highly irrelevant programs, enormous tax cuts for the wealthy, huge increases in military spending that the Joint Chiefs don't want, and destroying Medicare. The parties could not be more different if they tried

3. Gay rights - The Dems have done a myriad of things for gay rights like repeal DADT which only had 6 Repub Senate votes, all from Senators who were abandoned by their party or were in highly Democratic states. The GOP monolith itself has been staunchly anti-gay rights at every juncture.

[MadMojoMonkey]

The examples you give are not of the polarizing language you suggest, but of uniform language yet with antithetical policies underneath them. You kinda just made my point that the parties are indeed very different.

Almost thought I'd been pwned, but after some further thought:

If people think they agree on the problem, but disagree on the solution, then they have not agreed on the problem. A problem that is well stated implies its solution. If a solution is not clear, then the problem statement is either too vague or the terms are not being used equally by all parties involved.

It is common that 2 parties will agree that an effect of some policy is undesired, but they do not agree on the cause. This leads them to favoring different policies to alter different causes. This doesn't mean that they are antithetical to each-others ideas, it just means that they have not addressed the same problem.

[wufwugy]

Almost thought I'd been pwned, but after some further thought:

If people think they agree on the problem, but disagree on the solution, then they have not agreed on the problem. A problem that is well stated implies its solution. If a solution is not clear, then the problem statement is either too vague or the terms are not being used equally by all parties involved.

It is common that 2 parties will agree that an effect of some policy is undesired, but they do not agree on the cause. This leads them to favoring different policies to alter different causes. This doesn't mean that they are antithetical to each-others ideas, it just means that they have not addressed the same problem.

You're right that that alone doesn't make them antithetical, but when you look at the actual policy positions, they end up being antithetical regardless of rhetoric, some nuances in disagreements, how they got there, etc.

The Rs start unprovoked wars and dont pay for them, the Ds dont start wars and pay for the ones started by the Rs. This is antithetical. Inserting the fact that both Ds and Rs like a large military doesn't negate it, but that is an example of how people will falsely conclude that the parties are the same. They merely look at the patterns they want to see while ignoring everything else