"There is no difference between Democrats and Republicans"--echoes of 2000?

[jpgray]

This comparison isn't a very valid one, but I'm curious as to what people think.

First, let's figure out what sort of person would make that remark, with regard to Hillary or whomever. The person that would do so -must- see a stance on one or two issues as being so enormously important that other undeniable differences are blotted. Just as you can't see the little stars when the flippin' sun is in the sky, for some the war, foreign policy and attacks on civil liberties are so dominant that other inarguable differences between the parties lose importance.

And that's fine, to a point. The proper balance between wrongly denying differences exist and correctly recognizing that crucial similarities exist is going to be very arbitrary. But there have been only a few times I've seen the -media- actively encourage this equation of Democrats and Republicans. They are doing it now, and they did it in 2000, in a way they simply didn't in 2004. Why?

One similarity between 2000 and now is this: the likely GOP presidential candidates poll significantly behind the likely Democratic presidential candidates. Now it's obvious to me that Democrats in 2000 were less susceptible to these attacks of "no difference" than are our current batch, because the stakes are higher these days and people are anxious for significant change. But isn't it interesting that this crops up in the media far more when the GOP is in electoral trouble? And isn't it odd that the media almost never promote a "Republicans are the same as Democrats" argument targeting the base of the GOP? It's unquestionable that Democrats have left themselves open to these attacks, but are these attacks -always- applied fairly by the media, or are they applied in situations when the GOP is in trouble?

And who benefits from the "Democrats = Republicans" idea, however valid you believe it to be? Again 2000 does not much resemble 2008 at all, but I find it interesting that this idea caught the most traction in the media when the Democrats were poised to gain a presidential victory.

It's totally reasonable to say that this is a facile comparison that ignores too many other factors, and I do agree the two parties are similar in many important ways--I'm just curious what people think.

[rudy23]

1. I think if one were to qualify that statement, it would still ring pretty true.

You can't go all or nothing with it. If you said 75% of the Democrats are only marginally different from the Republicans, you might be on to something.

Sure, the Democrats would nominate more centrist judges to the Supreme Court, and give us a little bit better healthcare.

But what's the difference between Clinton, Lieberman, Pelosi, Reid, and a Republican? There's a marginal difference there, but they're still pretty hawkish, not only in the Middle East, but against the Middle Class, and our civil liberties, as well.

[jpgray]

3. But it's not sexy to say "too many Democrats are too similar to Republicans"

People go for the blunt object of "There is no difference." They may not really mean that, but it is what people say.

[sendero]

23. everybody...

.. uses some hyperbole to make their point.

How about this: "Dems are not enough better than Republicans any more to make it worth the trouble of actually supporting them, or to motivate anyone who cares about their country to actually work for them".

Because that is EXACTLY how I feel at this point. Sure, HRC is not a Republican, but on the issues that matter to me she might as well be.

So I'll vote for her because that takes little effort but I won't send her money or support her in any other way because there is simply no reason to bother.

[billbuckhead]

2. Dems are corrupted by corporations

Republicans ARE the corporations.

[jpgray]

4. Money in politics to me is why progressive stances are popular, yet progressive candidates are not

Now how do you get money out of the system? Through policymakers, politicians that had to win in that very system. :crazy: Would people agree that Democrats are most sympathetic to that end as compared to Republicans? Sure, but Democrats are still very unlikely to effect real change in that regard as that system is what presumably won them the election. They are more sympathetic than Republicans, however.

[cali]

6. That doesn't even make any sense.

In truth, corporations are neither dems nor repukes. They're in it for profit and they can be counted on to ally with the winning side. There are way too many corporate ties to both parties, but it can't be summed up with a one liner.

[Cha]

5. Corporatemediawhores are on their

never-ending march to manipulate the country and if they say there's no difference between Dems and reptiles then they rule, no?

NO.

[StClone]

7. Why are we even subjected to such?

Might as well ask if DUers are just like Freepers.

[Tesha]

21. Actually, there's a lot of evidence to support that idea.

We just have better spelling, grammar, and
punctuation.

Tesha

[StClone]

32. In Form but not function or ends

Do we slime "Graemes"!? Do we worship a Coulter of the Left? Do we contest Science? Are we Authoritarians? Did we attack Andy for shits and giggles? etc. I know what you think you are saying...and I know DU has slipped, but in reality there is a heart here and fear and loathing there. Some intersection but otherwise mostly apart.

[jpgray]

33. I think freepers and DUers are very different--but some general behaviors are similar

Now taking those behaviors out of their context may not lead to the most useful insights. You can do it, though! :D

[whoneedstickets]

8. There is an enormous difference....

..all you have to do is ask yourself what would happen to Social Security, Medicare, Medicade, the EPA, etc...if the republicans had their way. We saw a hint of it with Bush social security 'plan'. How much would we spend on defense? What medical research would the fundies allow?

Attempts by the far left to diminish this difference is disingenuous.

[jpgray]

9. But leftists at least honestly believe that a few issues -do- diminish those differences

I agree with them, to a point. The media, however, I don't imagine have anywhere near as honest an agenda.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

10. THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE

THIS LIE HAS BEEN PEDDLED BY THE REPUBLICANS AND THEIR MEDIA FOR YEARS.

SUPPRESSES VOTE AND PUTS A FALSE LABEL ON THE DEMOCRATS.

[Blue-Jay]

17. .

[MannyGoldstein]

11. Dems Would NEVER Stand For Endless War Based On Fraud, ...

warrantless wiretapping, "free" trade agreements, torture, usurious bankruptcy laws, and so forth. Therefore, the two parties are quite different.

What... you say that Democrats have stood for some of these thing? ALL of these things? You must mean fringe Democrats from marginally blue states. right?

Huh? There are Democratic frontrunners for the Presidency who endorse that stuff, one from one of the bluest states in the country?

Wow! Incredible!

[jpgray]

15. They don't support any of those things as strongly as the Republicans do

Nor does the party support them as wholly as the Republicans do. The majority of those who oppose these bad policies are always Democrats. But do you feel those similarities blot out the important differences?

[Tesha]

24. A "Yea" vote is just as effective as a "YEEHAA-YEA!!!" vote.

And Democrats have cast a lot of "Yea" votes along
the way to the full rape and murder of our Constitution.

Tesha

[jpgray]

30. In Congress, but what about in the presidency?

Those minute differences, as Chomsky says, are magnified extraordinarily by the office. That means less death and destruction in foreign policy, for one. It also means fewer attacks on civil liberties.

[mike_c]

12. I think that, my opinions of the dem and repub parties aside...

...you've made a very astute observation. "And isn't it odd that the media almost never promote a "Republicans are the same as Democrats" argument targeting the base of the GOP?"

Indeed.

[jpgray]

13. What do you think causes that? Surely there is a fractured GOP base if Giuliani gets the nom

But it just doesn't seem as heavily marketed as the split between leftists/progressives and the Democrats. I wonder why that is?

edit: Note I am not arguing that no such split exists or that it shouldn't be discussed, but why is it discussed so prominently in the media?

[Sparkly]

14. Hmm, certainly food for thought.

:hi:

[SergeyDovlatov]

16. Sure. Let's try to do a match game

Hillary == Rudy
Dennis/Gravel == Ron Paul
Mitt Romney == John Edwards
Obama == Fred Thompson?
Bill Richardson == Tom Tancredo
Chris Dodd == Duncan Hunter
Joe Biden == John McCain

See. No difference whatsoever. :rofl:

[jpgray]

18. I can only assume people mean that there are too many similarities

That the similarities are few doesn't matter if they are on crucial issues. I would prefer if people put it that way, and mentioned specifics, rather than broad-brush smearing the entire Democratic Party, and pretending there is no significant difference on any issue.

[SergeyDovlatov]

44. I hope that was illustrated in my post

Depending on a particular matched pair, you might have superficial similarities and deep differences or the other way around.
But differences even more pronounced if you start comparing people within the same field.

Say, Dennis vs Hillary, or Biden vs Obama

[B Calm]

19. It's a republican excuse for saving face after

shooting yourself in the foot because they voted republican.

[Minstrel Boy]

20. There's a big difference:

Republicans call the tune, and Democrats dance to it.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

25. do you think this would change if we had a dem in the white house?

(not snark, serious question)

[leftchick]

27. exactly MB

dance dance dance.....

[jpgray]

31. All Democrats?

[Minstrel Boy]

45. Enough

Enough elected representatives in these times to mark no appreciable difference between a Republican- and Democratic- controlled legislature.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

22. i make this comment all the time, that this phrase 'no difference was echoed unendeningly in 2000'

it was wrong then it is wrong now.

some people may think there is not enough difference but i think they are wrong too.

[bridgit]

26. That comparison is hyperactive; the line should have read...

"Well of course there's a difference between the Democrats and Republicans, you dunder-head. Albeit less than a hair's breath but it is there."

There are some grand dem corporatist', that's a given. Would you rather have your war profiteers draped ala shades of http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/1071">Fun With Dick & Lynne, or http://www.metroactive.com/feinstein">Mr. Blum Goes to Washington?

Your bullets delivered via John Warner, or Sam Nunn?

So yeah there's a difference. With a republican you're guaranteed a shitty, pissy, smirky scowl of a ride x(

Ah but with a dem: you have a 50/50 chance...maybe...of having your pants pulled down, and your underwear pulled up your butt crack with a smile plus *maybe* a little ECE, some health care maybe maybe some education maybe even some freedom, liberty & justice for all sprinkled 'liberally' round the top like crushed walnuts; and *that* can be all the difference in the world...maybe :thumbsup:

[Zodiak]

28. I believe the OP is misquoting

I believe that the phrase is "not a dime's worth of difference", which implies a difference, but that difference is not worth much. A far more accurate statement than the strawman of "no difference".

[jpgray]

29. By that logic, the right of a woman to choose isn't worth a dime to such folks.

But the validity of the statement or the exact wording is not primarily what this thread is about--do you think the media promote this "no real difference" theme consistently, or is it selectively applied?

[Zodiak]

41. It's not worth a dime of difference to those folks that are

suffering from the economic squeeze brought on by both partys' worship of the multinational corporation....or of militarism, or of authoritarianism.

I fail to see how the media question relates to my opening post at all.

My statement simply shows that the "no difference" is a misquote, and a strawman. It is easy to show a difference between the parties, but the measure of that difference is what is at issue here.

[Forkboy]

34. Whether the charge is true or not is irrelevant at this point.

Because the perception is out there, and for seven years the Dems have done little to show the differences that do exist.We've done NOTHING to address why people bought that line the first time around, so we have no one to blame but ourselves if they believe it again.

[jpgray]

36. I'm curious though as to whether or not the media are pushing it selectively

Sort of the "chicken or the egg" of the progressive electorate: is the "no real difference" line used to split the progressive electorate, empowering the right-wing to dominate policy? Or is the right-wing domination of policy causing the progressive electorate to split?

[Forkboy]

38. A little of both would be my guess.

I can only speak for myself, but in twenty years I've gone from a moderate Dem to a far lefty Dem without changing a single opinion.I'm not the only one who can tell that same tale.

Of course, once there is a split the enemy will do all they can to further it, so yes, there is some of that as well.But a lot of it is genuine on the part of the people who feel it, and we as Dems have done pretty much nothing to counter it since 2000.

The differences, while large, are more on policy and details, not the kind of things that are seen as really leading, or least as something they speak of with passion and integrity.And certainly not the kind of things that will get attention to anyone other than political junkies and policy wonks.Until we do those things this split will just get worse.We need to stop blaming Nader and address the serious issues facing us as a party that led to his run having an effect.If we had appealed to those people better (and the Green platform and Dem platform have enough in common that it shouldn't have been that hard) we would have sewn up almost all of those votes.

Sadly, we're going right down that same path again in '08.The left is a strong enough force to bring people into the Whitehouse, but instead we pander to people who only share our ideals when it's politically convenient, turning off those same people who would help them win handily.

So, I guess I see this split as mainly our own fault, and I see us as being the only ones who can mend it, which would make us a major force instead of struggling against the worst president in our history.

[jpgray]

40. Well said. Polls show progressive stances are popular, yet progressive candidates lose

Which brings up another bizarre set of questions. Why do progressive candidates like Nader and Kucinich die at the ballot box when running for president when progressive stances are generally very popular across party lines? Does the nature of holding progressive stances prevent such a candidate from being competitive in corrupt, money-fueled campaigns? Do the media purposely ignore issues and focus on image, character and PR to bury such candidates? And if a progressive candidate doesn't have anything resembling a fair shot, how can we change the system when the only way to do so is by electing people who will change it?

[burythehatchet]

35. The analysis fails because the definition of each party is not valid any longer

For example, phrase the assertion this way: "The DLC corporatists and the neo-cons share very similar ideologies." That. I would say, is a very valid assertion. The fact that the DLC affiliates itself with the Democratic party skews the entire framework.

[jpgray]

37. On economics I'd say they're most similar. Somewhat less on foreign policy, still less on domestic

I understand people have their own ideas of what issues are so important that a lack of difference there tends to overshadow all else, but do you see a media promotion of this now and in 2000 that wasn't as prevalent in 2004? Or am I imagining things?

[burythehatchet]

39. Since I no longer watch any cable BS, I would not know. n/t

[Beelzebud]

42. There is a huge difference between the Democratic base and the Republican base.

I'm not so sure the difference is that great among our collective "leaders".

[jpgray]

43. Yet the GOP base does not see the two parties as being similar on the level we do

They see -Pelosi- of all people as horrifyingly liberal. I've seen many on DU describe her as a spineless sellout corporate whore. If the leadership is really that similar, why is it felt so keenly by the Democratic base on not the Republican base? And doesn't the GOP benefit quite a bit from that difference in perception between the two bases?