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
and now i put on my flame-proof suit.
the democrat party has two basic subdivisions - social freedom, and mommy-state
the first again fairly lines up with libertarians. they want to be free to be who they are, without fear of penalty for it. their basic belief is simple - treat everyone FAIRLY. trust us to make decisions for ourselves.
the latter are basically socialists - they want the government to provide everything, and believe that everyone should be treated equally. regardless of what you put into the pot, everyone pulls the same out. "from each, according to his ability, to each according to his need."
if the Dems split i honestly believe the Libertarians would quickly become the dominant party in the country.
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
(no subject)
no subject
I think it would be fascinating if the major parties split along their subdivisions. Doesn't look likely anytime soon, but it would sure be interesting if it happened.
(no subject)
no subject
I think if the Republican party had a split, the smaller offshoot would become as obscure and unadvertised around election time as the other "not in the big two" parties.