Republicans and Democrats: Love/Hate

Posted by rbroberg 5 years ago to Philosophy
14 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

I am convinced that Democrats believe in the needs of people. The Democrats see an issue and wish to see an immediate difference. The immediate difference is just the change desired and the change desired is based on an exact measurement of the distance between reality and utopia. The utopia is a collection of vague notions that define multiple consistencies within the amalgamation that constitutes their party. The change desired is also based on blame and punishment of the consistencies possessing the desired state or on a negation of characteristics defining that desired state. Because the critical feature of Democrats political survival is to be or be concerned with a difference between the states of different groups, the Democratic Party will not be able to function without defining differences from which issues arise. I will not belabor the reasons this approach cannot lead to the egalitarian utopia the Democrats desire. I will simply point out that it requires an antithetical point of view for its own survival.

The Republicans believe in the needs of the nation. From their perspective, the big picture is American interests, whatever those are deemed to consist of. One minute, it is free trade. The next, it is protectionism. One minute, it is individual rights. The next, it is advocating for enforcing closed borders. I do not need to spend time describing the conditions for the Republican Plutocrats who reverse the causal link between individual rights and wealth.

The two parties have essential connections that influence and propagate a cyclical pattern of political control. The Democrats define themselves as the have-nots, pushing against the Republicans for a greater share of the pie. The Republicans, pleased at their success, attribute their share of the pie to "tradition". The Democrats negate the various attributes of this tradition. Then the Republicans react, moving in linear fashion toward the Democrats or further from them in a negation of the negation. The Democrats are emboldened with each fracture of traditional values as this garners additional control. This has all the characteristics of an highly dysfunctional relationship. The Democrats love to hate the Republicans, the Republicans hate to love the Democrats... whatever it is, it abuses the kids. The taxpayers.

Objectivism and Objectivism alone describes the conditions and standards we should follow if we wish to succeed and prosper. Objectivists know that individual rights and capitalism are not the need, but the requirement of human life. No other system will do it.


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ CBJ 5 years ago
    Re: “I am convinced that Democrats believe in the needs of people. The Democrats see an issue and wish to see an immediate difference.” Actually, Democrats believe in exploiting the supposed needs of their constituents to buy votes and gain ever more political power. They promote envy (“look what the greedy 1% have that you don’t”) and a false sense of entitlement (“we demand our fair share of the country’s wealth”). They set up bureaucratic monstrosities such as Obamacare to make people perpetually dependent on the government to fulfill their “needs”, while strongly opposing any attempt to encourage self-sufficiency (as in the teachers unions' battle against school choice). Democrats (or at least their leaders) perfectly fit Ayn Rand’s description of Ellsworth Toohey: they are leeches that feed on sores.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by chad 5 years ago
    When you indicate that democrats believe in the needs of the people I think you are pointing out that the Democrat herd believes in this, not the leaders. The leaders merely sell that they are also interested in the needs of the people and as soon as they get them under control of the state their needs will be met. The Republican herd takes a different approach to get to the same result, enslavement.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jimjamesjames 5 years ago
    "NEED" DOES NOT EQUAL "OBLIGATION"

    As to needs of the Nation, those are also RESPONSIBILITIES.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 5 years ago
      Eh, not sure what you mean. Need is a weird thing. I never needed an iPhone until I had one. The difference is the person selling it to me did not also pay me to buy it from him.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by jimjamesjames 5 years ago
        Start at Maslow's first level, food, shelter, clothing. After that, it's open to interpretation. Interesting, when I go elk hunting, my companions and I invariabgley discuss the issue of "need." We have no cell connection, no WiFi and, also, invariabley, conclude we can live without them. But my point is that because a needs exists does not impose an oblication on another. Government recognizes need (Obama Phones?) and then forces individuals to fulfill those needs. Giving should always be a choice based on that individuals values keeping in mind that givers have to set limits because takers never do.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by BeenThere 5 years ago
    "Objectivism and Objectivism alone describes the conditions and standards we should follow if we wish to succeed and prosper. Objectivists know that individual rights and capitalism are not the need, but the requirement of human life. No other [philosophical] system will do it."

    Exactly!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 5 years ago
    You raise interesting points. I was confused why you said Republicans one minute support trade and the next minute support protectionism.

    I'm also interested in the part syaing "Democrats define themselves as the have-nots". I have certainly heard that, but the actual numbers show people's association with the parties is not correlated with wealth.

    I am also interested in the part about distance from utopia. Do you think both parties have an utopian vision of sorts? If so, which party feels closer to utopia?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 5 years ago
      Think of have-nots as having a psychological identification with some form of separation from a deserved state of equality, some kind of bitter envy. Whether those be riches, power, fame, or other desired result, there is some state that someone doesn't have, and the DP is upset about that.

      Regarding the second question: I'm pretty sure the utopias look totally different. My perception is that the DP defines equality and particularly solidarity to be their goal while the RP defines a national exceptionalism and/or dominance to be theirs. That is just my opinion.

      To the third question, I believe both parties are wrong on fundamentals so I do not recognize either as contributing significantly to a Utopian society. Finally, I can only define utopia (from a political perspective) as that state in which a government respects, protects, and enshrines individual rights.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 5 years ago
        " can only define utopia (from a political perspective) as that state in which a government respects, protects, and enshrines individual rights."
        It my ideal too. It has elements from both party in that the US in that it's based on an idea of liberty rather than on an ethnic group.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo