How Did The Democrats And Republicans Choose Their Positions?

[TheReasonator]

Why is there clustering? What does abortion have to do with universal health care?(to come to think of it, logically you'd expect pro-life people to support it) That makes it sound like most people only think about one issue and then just assume that because the party was right about it therefore they must be right about everything else.

No it doesn't. It means that people subscribe to similar ideologies that lead to the same conclusions on a variety of issues. As a leftist example, radicals believe that all people, by the fact of their very existence, are equally entitled to a variety of rights and privileges, but that most are denied these rights by great self-sustaining distortions in the distribution of power which must be ameliorated through activism. In the U.S. (e.g., socialists), such ideologies naturally entail feminism, environmentalism, queer politics, social justice, and perhaps redistribution of wealth and provision for welfare. At the opposite end, reactionaries believe that, through the inclusion of and interaction with undesirable elements, society has undergone threatening decay which can only be reversed by bringing back the status quo ante and re-empowering once-dominant institutions. In the U.S. (e.g., the Constitution Party), this basically means a harsher attitude towards immigration and homosexuals, devolution of rights to the states, protectionism, isolationism, moralistic restrictions of civil liberties, and abolishing government-funded welfare programs.

How lazy.

This statement has no merits.

It's not as natural as you might think. Many socialist countries weren't tolerant towards homosexuals and I'm not just talking about market 'socialist' countries I mean the countries even when they were actually practicing socialism. They called it a "bourgeois vice". Not saying that was right, but it did happen. Communist Romania tightly controlled its economic policies at the top but it also banned women from having abortions in order to increase their population.

Even with your explanation it still seems illogical. "Rights" can be "wrongs" sometimes. What about NAMBLA and what they claim ought to be a "right"? Assuming that every right that is promoted as a right should really considered a right without critical thinking is ridiculous. On the other side believing that we should "go back to the past" on every single issue is just as illogical. Each issue needs to be weighed and decided on its own merits, not "I love this because they're saying a lot of pretty words about rights." or "that's new, new things scare me." Both sides have merit. Maybe if we've been doing something for a long time it's because it's worked, but assuming that and being unwilling to consider that in this particular case it doesn't work is ludicrous. And maybe these people asking for rights have a point and maybe should be granted these rights, but then maybe they shouldn't.

While I identify with the left because I see it as on balance having the more correct opinions for the day, I don't deny the possibility of shifting to the right not necessarily through a change of opinion but because the issues of the day change. There are at least some countries in Europe where I would be economically to the right.

[Undecided]

It's not as natural as you might think. Many socialist countries weren't tolerant towards homosexuals and I'm not just talking about market 'socialist' countries I mean the countries even when they were actually practicing socialism. They called it a "bourgeois vice". Not saying that was right, but it did happen. Communist Romania tightly controlled its economic policies at the top but it also banned women from having abortions in order to increase their population.

Even with your explanation it still seems illogical. "Rights" can be "wrongs" sometimes. What about NAMBLA and what they claim ought to be a "right"? Assuming that every right that is promoted as a right should really considered a right without critical thinking is ridiculous. On the other side believing that we should "go back to the past" on every single issue is just as illogical. Each issue needs to be weighed and decided on its own merits, not "I love this because they're saying a lot of pretty words about rights." or "that's new, new things scare me." Both sides have merit. Maybe if we've been doing something for a long time it's because it's worked, but assuming that and being unwilling to consider that in this particular case it doesn't work is ludicrous. And maybe these people asking for rights have a point and maybe should be granted these rights, but then maybe they shouldn't.

While I identify with the left because I see it as on balance having the more correct opinions for the day, I don't deny the possibility of shifting to the right not necessarily through a change of opinion but because the issues of the day change. There are at least some countries in Europe where I would be economically to the right.

Your response actually sidesteps my point. You pointed out a phenomenon—the stances that Democrats and Republicans take on issues—and asked for an explanation. I provided as much, stating that voting theory and shared beliefs among the electorate force the parties in a two-party system to take ideologically homogeneous positions just to the left or the right of the median voter. Ideologies vary between time periods and electoral districts, of course, but that fact doesn't affect the consistency of the answer. Equally irrelevant is the likely possibility that voter's preferences do not reflect their best interests.

Aside, from that, you seem to propound that voters should pursue their interests with indifferent rationality and possess a skeptical attitude towards their own beliefs. Well, obviously they should do that, but they don't, and you can't make them.

[TheReasonator]

It's not as natural as you might think. Many socialist countries weren't tolerant towards homosexuals and I'm not just talking about market 'socialist' countries I mean the countries even when they were actually practicing socialism. They called it a "bourgeois vice". Not saying that was right, but it did happen. Communist Romania tightly controlled its economic policies at the top but it also banned women from having abortions in order to increase their population.

Even with your explanation it still seems illogical. "Rights" can be "wrongs" sometimes. What about NAMBLA and what they claim ought to be a "right"? Assuming that every right that is promoted as a right should really considered a right without critical thinking is ridiculous. On the other side believing that we should "go back to the past" on every single issue is just as illogical. Each issue needs to be weighed and decided on its own merits, not "I love this because they're saying a lot of pretty words about rights." or "that's new, new things scare me." Both sides have merit. Maybe if we've been doing something for a long time it's because it's worked, but assuming that and being unwilling to consider that in this particular case it doesn't work is ludicrous. And maybe these people asking for rights have a point and maybe should be granted these rights, but then maybe they shouldn't.

While I identify with the left because I see it as on balance having the more correct opinions for the day, I don't deny the possibility of shifting to the right not necessarily through a change of opinion but because the issues of the day change. There are at least some countries in Europe where I would be economically to the right.

Your response actually sidesteps my point. You pointed out a phenomenon—the stances that Democrats and Republicans take on issues—and asked for an explanation. I provided as much, stating that voting theory and shared beliefs among the electorate force the parties in a two-party system to take ideologically homogeneous positions just to the left or the right of the median voter. Ideologies vary between time periods and electoral districts, of course, but that fact doesn't affect the consistency of the answer. Equally irrelevant is the likely possibility that voter's preferences do not reflect their best interests.

Aside, from that, you seem to propound that voters should pursue their interests with indifferent rationality and possess a skeptical attitude towards their own beliefs. Well, obviously they should do that, but they don't, and you can't make them.

Then my point that it is lazy stands. People may not be rational and I don't think they should need to in many areas of life, but politics is one of them where morally and ethically we ought to be rational. It is the exercise of power and coercion and yet people feel fine exercising it whimsically.

As for not being able to make them, well we can't do that in any explicit sense of "making them" but there's got to be a nice, nonoffensive way to convince people to become more rational about politics and to think more critically about it.

For one thing, teach logic and critical thinking as a class starting in elementary school. That might not be enough, but it would be a start.

[Lt. Fred]

median voter theorem, for any given issue, one party's position must always be just to the left of that of the median voter, and the other party's position must always be just to the right.

The theorem isn't really operative in the US context, is it? One party is a little to the right of the median voter, and the other is far to the right of the median voter (but better organised, more effective propagandists, ect). In fact, policy views have little impact on American voting pattern (ref; what's the matter with Kansas?).

[m52nickerson]

Ignore Ltfred, he refuses to believe that the voters in the US are as right leaning as they are.

[Lt. Fred]

Take universal health insurance; a strong majority of Americans support a single payer system (ie; 'a universal system of Medicare-for-all'). Once party would and did not provide that, the other would end Medicare and replace it with a voucher system. The median voter is well to the left of both parties.

You can probably find the opposite as well. Where's a situation where most Americans are to the right of political consensus?

[nickiknack]

Take universal health insurance; a strong majority of Americans support a single payer system (ie; 'a universal system of Medicare-for-all'). Once party would and did not provide that, the other would end Medicare and replace it with a voucher system. The median voter is well to the left of both parties.

You can probably find the opposite as well. Where's a situation where most Americans are to the right of political consensus?

It's not worth it, Fred. You know damn well that this will go on for 3+ fucking pages of you two going back and forth, He doesn't even want to admit that the right has controlled the debate for 30 + years, it's not worth it.

[TheReasonator]

Take universal health insurance; a strong majority of Americans support a single payer system (ie; 'a universal system of Medicare-for-all'). Once party would and did not provide that, the other would end Medicare and replace it with a voucher system. The median voter is well to the left of both parties.

You can probably find the opposite as well. Where's a situation where most Americans are to the right of political consensus?

There's voters and there's people who stay home and don't vote.

[m52nickerson]

Take universal health insurance; a strong majority of Americans support a single payer system (ie; 'a universal system of Medicare-for-all'). Once party would and did not provide that, the other would end Medicare and replace it with a voucher system. The median voter is well to the left of both parties.

You can probably find the opposite as well. Where's a situation where most Americans are to the right of political consensus?

Making English that official language would be one of those opposite situations.  Another is the overall size and control of the federal government.

[nickiknack]

Take universal health insurance; a strong majority of Americans support a single payer system (ie; 'a universal system of Medicare-for-all'). Once party would and did not provide that, the other would end Medicare and replace it with a voucher system. The median voter is well to the left of both parties.

You can probably find the opposite as well. Where's a situation where most Americans are to the right of political consensus?

There's voters and there's people who stay home and don't vote.

Just because they stay home and don't vote doesn't mean they're not part of this country. Also given the fact that our electoral system is a piece of shit and the only choices people have is the choice between shit and shit on a stick, is it any wonder there's a lot of voter apathy??

[Lt. Fred]

Take universal health insurance; a strong majority of Americans support a single payer system (ie; 'a universal system of Medicare-for-all'). Once party would and did not provide that, the other would end Medicare and replace it with a voucher system. The median voter is well to the left of both parties.

You can probably find the opposite as well. Where's a situation where most Americans are to the right of political consensus?

Making English that official language would be one of those opposite situations.  Another is the overall size and control of the federal government.

The second is not really an issue at all, is it? It's a bit meta, more of a slogan or general motherhood statement.

I was thinking something like immigration.

[m52nickerson]

He doesn't even want to admit that the right has controlled the debate for 30 + years, it's not worth it.

When did I take that stand?

Just because they stay home and don't vote doesn't mean they're not part of this country. Also given the fact that our electoral system is a piece of shit and the only choices people have is the choice between shit and shit on a stick, is it any wonder there's a lot of voter apathy??

In the political realm non-voters might as well not be part of the country.  A person can protest, scream and yell all they like but unless they vote those elected to office will not care. 

The second is not really an issue at all, is it? It's a bit meta, more of a slogan or general motherhood statement.

I was thinking something like immigration.

Immigration might be one as well.  The size of government is a bit of a slogan, but it is also a reason that the right always get some traction.  Everyone has a law or something the government gets involved in that they don't like.

[nickiknack]

Here

Center-Left, no.  Polls can say what they want, it is the way people vote that counts.  See the Dems could try and keep the people they lose to other parties like the greens, but in doing so they will lose more people that fall in the center.  It is about numbers.  If large numbers of people where falling from the Dems to the left other parties would be gaining traction.  You don't see that happening, and it is not the media's fault.

One side does not own the media.  That is way each side claims the others does.

The only way people are brain washed is when they don't really care.  That's the problem.  People don't put any thought into politics and voting.  People will vote against Obama simply because things are not going right for them and he must be to blame.  Others will vote against Romney because he is a rich out of touch white guy.

You said right there, that it's not the fault of the media. How else do you think they control the debate?? The MSM is a powerful tool, and Republicans have being controling it for 30+ years, and you deny it's even a problem.

Also how do you except people to vote, if all they see in politicans is two sides of the same coin?? Because I know many people IRL and online, that see politicans in that light. I don't blame them, because I know first hand how to be jaded as fuck, that's why I've had it with the 2 mainstream parties more or less.

[m52nickerson]

You said right there, that it's not the fault of the media. How else do you think they control the debate?? The MSM is a powerful tool, and Republicans have being controling it for 30+ years, and you deny it's even a problem.

They control the debate by making arguments that are simple to recite, sound really good and not caring one bit if they are true.  I mean who doesn't thing that less government intrusion and more freedom does not sound good?  Things like a balanced budget and paying less taxes tend to get peoples approval.  That is why the right controls the debate.  There arguments are much simpler.  The left has to explain their ideas a lot more and than explain why the rights don't pan out.

The media for the most part simply reports on these.  Yes you have talk radio which is dominated by the right and fox news but after that not much for the conservative side of things. 

Also how do you except people to vote, if all they see in politicans is two sides of the same coin??

In all my years of voting I have rarely seen only two choices for every race.  Also if people are not happy with the choices they have they can always run for office themselves.

[nickiknack]

If you watch different sources of media, you can tell the difference. I haven't watched mainstream cable news(other than PBS) in years, because it's all bs, look at how CNN called the VP debate for Paul Ryan, when it wasn't clearly the case.

How is the avenge joe suppose to run for office if he's barely able to keep a roof over his head, and the only people in this country that run office seem to have a shit load of $$$ money laying around. If you don't have connections to the big shits in this country, you're nobody. If we had some decent campaign finance reform this could change, but until then that's a fucking fantasy.