jchrisobrien (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
jchrisobrien) wrote2008-11-06 12:14 pm
jchrisobrien) wrote2008-11-06 12:14 pm
Parties within Parties
One of my Warhammer boards has a pretty lively off topic section, and politics has been big on their minds for the past year. While talking about issues within the Republican party, a friend of mine posted this.
There are three major factions in the Republican party, as I see it:
1. The classic fiscal conservatives, who are very much akin to Libertarians. They want small government, with minimal interference in people's lives, low taxes, and fiscal responsibility.
2. The Neoconservatives. This faction is largely based on Kissinger's idea of Realpolitik- the need for basically American hegenomy and international control for our security and to ensure our economic might. This faction wants power, both for themselves and for America around the world, and will happily expand government to get it.
3. The theocratic social conservatives. This faction mostly just cares about their religious values, and wants them enforced by the state. Their priorities are abortion, no gay marriage, and the expression of their religious values in the public square (but not others') and with government assistance. They don't want the government to interfere with their actions, but are happy for it to interfere on their behalf.
So what you have here are three groups with pretty different agendas, but who are all called Republicans. Fiscal conservatives and theocratic conservatives look like they'd be at odds more than allies, but we still lump them together as Republicans. I think that does the party more of a disservice, painting everyone with the same brush. I'm sure there are subdivisions within the Democratic party, but I couldn't tell you off the top of my head.
How interesting would it be if the subdivisions broke out on their own, and formed their own policital parties? Now you'd have six parties where you had two before. The fiscal conservatives would probably absorb a lot of the libertarian party, or vice versa, and more marginal groups would be on closer footing with the big two. It probably would never happen, but I think more people should look at the parties within the parties. Stop seeing generic Democrats and Republicans, and start focusing on the subdivisions.
Be cool, or be cast out! (there, I finally made my Rush joke)
There are three major factions in the Republican party, as I see it:
1. The classic fiscal conservatives, who are very much akin to Libertarians. They want small government, with minimal interference in people's lives, low taxes, and fiscal responsibility.
2. The Neoconservatives. This faction is largely based on Kissinger's idea of Realpolitik- the need for basically American hegenomy and international control for our security and to ensure our economic might. This faction wants power, both for themselves and for America around the world, and will happily expand government to get it.
3. The theocratic social conservatives. This faction mostly just cares about their religious values, and wants them enforced by the state. Their priorities are abortion, no gay marriage, and the expression of their religious values in the public square (but not others') and with government assistance. They don't want the government to interfere with their actions, but are happy for it to interfere on their behalf.
So what you have here are three groups with pretty different agendas, but who are all called Republicans. Fiscal conservatives and theocratic conservatives look like they'd be at odds more than allies, but we still lump them together as Republicans. I think that does the party more of a disservice, painting everyone with the same brush. I'm sure there are subdivisions within the Democratic party, but I couldn't tell you off the top of my head.
How interesting would it be if the subdivisions broke out on their own, and formed their own policital parties? Now you'd have six parties where you had two before. The fiscal conservatives would probably absorb a lot of the libertarian party, or vice versa, and more marginal groups would be on closer footing with the big two. It probably would never happen, but I think more people should look at the parties within the parties. Stop seeing generic Democrats and Republicans, and start focusing on the subdivisions.
Be cool, or be cast out! (there, I finally made my Rush joke)
no subject
no subject
i see the Democratic divisions as more between the moderate, centrist, pro-business Dems (as represented by Bill Clinton), and the more radical leftwing who looks to the European model of socialist democracies. both think government is necessary to protect minorities and women's rights, to provide social services, and regulate business. but i think the more centrist Democrats are comfortable with free trade agreements like NAFTA, with civil unions instead of gay marriage, and generally with balancing the needs of business with the public welfare, where the more radical left is deeply concerned about the environment (and the effects of negligent corporations on creating huge amounts of toxic waste and pollution), agitates against NAFTA and the WTO, wants unfettered access to abortion and contraception, and believes in full equality and protection for the whole LGBT community.
the two poles have their disagreements but i think they share a common view of the role of government, at least enough to maintain some coherence as a party.
no subject
no subject
Social freedom seems to be pretty integral to all of the Democratic divisions. There is a small religious left group, but they seem to focus their efforts on promoting peace and charity, rather than screaming about "the gays."
There are a rising number of Fundamentalists who think too much focus is put on abortion and homosexuality, and more should be put on the poor and the environment. It may be several years before those people move into any kind of political power.
no subject