posted
Democrat in this case referring to those who literally believe that if the voice of the people choose something, we should all live by it. A Republican being someone who feels some principles should not be legislated democratically.
Maybe this is just another of my crazy first-thing-in-the-morning thoughts. But it seems reasonable to me that above-average intelligence people have greater confidence in people to govern themselves on personal matters.
I know in my case, when I was younger I favored the Democrats. Perhaps it was experience that taught me that intelligence, talent, and even religious involvement won't guarantee someone makes right choices. I have discovered that the vast majority of people, even very intelligent ones, have needs that sometimes overrule their good sense. Love of money is a big one, desire for validation from others is probably the main one we see on this board.
But extending this principle to the larger scope of liberal vs. conservative, why do dem/liberals tend to favor government restriction on business and rep/conservatives tend the other way? I would maybe guess that the bright d/l sees an organization as having a dumbing influence on people, where a r/c assumes the cream will rise and give competent leadership to the organization.
Why does this idea reverse when it comes to the largest organization, government? Well, I don't really know. Maybe because we all feel the government is a reflection of the people and so we revert to our attitudes about individuals.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:A Republican being someone who feels some principles should not be legislated democratically.
This assumption I don't understand. Could you elaborate on exactly what you are assuming is the difference between Democrats and Republicans in this post?
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Democrat in this case referring to those who literally believe that if the voice of the people choose something, we should all live by it. A Republican being someone who feels some principles should not be legislated democratically.
This confuses the issue dramatically. For example, on abortion, Democrats certainly don't believe that if the voice of the people choose something, we should all live by it. Likely the same on legislating prayer in school, or at public meetings.
The Republicans, on the other hand, seem to want to enshrine momentary majority opposition to flag bruning and gay marriage into the Constitution, being democratically inclined for the moment, but binding the future generations.
I don't think your distinction can be generalized across political parties.
posted
I'm referring to the roots of the Republican part that began around the time of Abraham Lincoln. Slavery was the main issue, but also polygamy in Utah, where the Republican principle of right over plebiscite is demonstrated. It is reflected in the modern commitment to religious principles.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But it's not really reflected in a modern commitment to religious principles, because in almost every case, those laws are being enacted by the political branches elected democratically and struck down by the appointed judiciary in a manner that contravenes the will of the majority.
The slavery and polygamy examples are more about where power resides in the state/federal structure, since, nationally, I believe, majorities favored ending slavery (I'm very unsure about this, and not saying a majority favored fighting a war on it) and banning polygamy (I'm pretty sure on this one). Even without the more doubtful slavery national majority, there are lots of issues where the party lines just fail.
The early New Deal is a good example of one where Democrats favored the policy desired by the majority and the Republicans tired to limit it via the courts. But the abortion issue, prayer in school, and flag burning are clear examples where the parties are generally reversed.
posted
mothertree, forgive me if I should know this, but do you consider yourself a libreal or a conservative? A Democrat or a Republican?
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Conservative, and Republican more often than Democrat. I part with the Republican tendencies on 2nd Amendment and Capital punishment and EPA stuff. I think it is tragic that so many people don't remember that our party was born to end slavery, and those that do know that don't understand why.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Odd that most of the countries so many Democrats respect for their international reputations, Germany etc., have such strict rules governing pretty much everything in life. Now all the rules make sense, but they have to be followed. Germans are all about fining you etc. What I find funny is that most Democrats believe that people will always simply do the right thing, one of the worst assumptions an NCO or leader of any kind can make about a person/people. The thing is when it comes down the regulation etc. all these democrats don't want police all over etc. You don't want invasion of privacy etc., but you want people to simply follow the rules that you make. The problem is that Americans aren't ethically trained by some higher governing power, we find that wrong and incorrect, but we aren't willing to enforce laws so that even if people people believe its all right to do they won't commit such an act. Anyhow I rambled.
Posts: 1753 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In Germany they have locks on the garbage cans so people don't sneak garbage into each other's cans. I'm not sure if it is because they pay by weight or something.
The only other thing I know about Germany is that they don't itemize phone calls on the bill because they are so committed to privacy. So if you get a bill for a week's salary and you don't know why, that's just too bad.
quote:Democrat in this case referring to those who literally believe that if the voice of the people choose something, we should all live by it. A Republican being someone who feels some principles should not be legislated democratically.
I don't think that we all should live by the rules because the voice of the people choose them. Rather, we should all live by the rules because we, with thought and honesty, consider them the most appropriate rules to live by.
The mere appeal the majority's wants would not explain why there are so many minority democrats. We should live by the rules because the rules are adequate to the kind of nation we strive to be.
I do believe that principles have to be legislated democractically, I think we always already are legislating principles democratically, and if you don't see that, it's because the principles you believe in are the ones that are legislated. The dignity and character of a nation depend on the decisions we take as a nation concerning our principles and priorities. It's the same with individuals.
posted
Maybe it has something to do with laizzez faire capitalism during the industrial revolution. It improved a lot of lives, raised the standards of living for a lot of people, but at the same time it created slums, pollution, and also there were unsafe working conditions and child labour which eventually led to the birth of socialism. Republicans supporting weakening regulations could have something to do with the fact that they get a lot of money from these corporations. Bush, for example, gets a lot of money from the meat industry. As a result they weaken things like meat inspection because it costs the companies a great deal of money, but it's one reason why I stopped eating cold cuts that could be contaminated with listeria. But, I think that the Democrat party has become weak, like a Republican lite party, so I mostly wish there was a third party that believed in middle ground more.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Both parties have made compromises with necessary evils.
quote: I don't think that we all should live by the rules because the voice of the people choose them. Rather, we should all live by the rules because we, with thought and honesty, consider them the most appropriate rules to live by.
I do think there is a place for civil disobedience, where a law is enacted that one feels compelled to disobey. But there are a lot of laws that just are. Or they were enacted due to the expertise of people that we trust. Like rules governing what to make roads out of and how they should be shaped.
Democracy was doubted in the beginning and still is by some today because the idea of government and freedom are fundamentally at odds with one another.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
