The problem with politics in America

[dmase]

Excuse me my possible ignorance, for I am not a resident of the United States, buuuuuuuuut...

...Isn't it somewhat normal that, in a country as populous as the USA and with only two true political parties, these political parties tend to become somewhat contradictionary? I mean, it would be a bigger surprise to see two monolithic parties, comprised of millions of voters/members/followers in which not a single deviance of idea or interpretation exists.

The problem being that they are so contradictory that instead of seeking a compromise or a favorable solution that falls in between, they go all out for extremes. The best example is the subject of marriage - one party believes that marriage as the concept stands should be thrown out the window entirely and the other believes that marriage cannot be anything but one man and one woman. And deviation from those stances makes them toss you under the bus, because you are a "traitor" to the party.

I had a very eye-opening experience in 2004 when I encountered one Sarah Palin at a Republican rally (my sister lives in Alaska, so we went) for Bush. Thousands of Republicans flocked to her side. She publically lauded my military service, my voting for the party in previous elections and my position towards a fiscally conservative government. Then, when I expressed my position on stem cell research, she turned on me. Violently. "You are not a Republican. You're a sorry excuse for an Independent," are her exact words to me. She said them with such venom and force that it shocked me. I realized right then and there that the party I grew up supporting had transformed into something else. I totally identified with Arlen Specter when he said, "This is not the party I ran with in the 80's."

This pissed me off... your a better man then me. I would have told her off in front of as many people as i could and hope that the media was around to catch it all.
What i would probably say to her would consist of a few key words:
I didn't know they had rednecks in Alaska
racist
facist
hypocrite
down syndrome baby(yeah i would go there)
Thats without using some nasty words like the c word oh yes that would start it off probably dumb...C

 

[dmase]

the political parties aren't contradictory they just have there views there not contradictory. You called the democrats as great protectors well doesn't protecting gays or women's right count. Or protecting young men that would have to fight the battles overseas.

The republicans only change when neccesary that is why they refuse to have limits on gun control, they want abortion to be rid of, and gay marriage to take a back seat they want conservative or classic ideals. When i think of democrats there new age thinkers that are progressive and republicans are the classic thinkers that think yesterday was good so we can make tomorrow better by using previous lessons. There is a place for both parties because the world isn't always ready for change and some times new progressive thinking is for the better.

This is my big point tho they are different policies they have different ways of handling them.

 

[Char-Nobyl]

You could have more unbiased news channels for a start. At least in the UK it's only the newspapers that are biased.

Freedom of speech is meant to protect the people that the majority disagrees with.

Besides, outlets like Fox news give the general public the impression that the right are just a bunch of idiots, which constitutes a fair portion of the credit for the growing left support.

 

[ZZ-Tops89]

sorry to kill the win. I'll grant your points about the starting point used, the problem is that the only way to avoid a contradiction is to use a sort of neutral eye to observe the issue and find the problems with the two sides. My point is essentially the same point you make in your second paragraph, and that as a result if you view the issues from the neutral position both sides are problematic with regards to conflicting views on the role of government.

Centrist isn't neutral, it's just centrist. A view that there's no existing "stance" on an issue is not inherently more valid. You view yourself as being an impartial observer, and thus able to see the contradiction, but the contradiction only exists from your perspective. It could be that you have the "right" perspective and the members of the parties are wrong, but there's no empirical evidence for that. Hard-line neutrality is just as biased.

Let me put it this way: on the issue of gay marriage your "neutral" view would be that the government has no stance on something; one side is trying to make it legal, and one side is trying to make it illegal. Except we have to take into account what actually happens when the government has no position. If the government did nothing on the issue of gay marriage in either direction, it wouldn't exist. The Republicans, then, are trying to remain consistent with what would happen without government interference. The Democrats are consistent with what "should" happen with government interference.

A centrist perspective is a fine one, but it's simply a perspective. There may be an objectively "correct" view, but you've made no argument that your view is the right one. You see the fact that there is contradiction if viewed from your perspective as evidence in and of itself of the existence of actual contradiction, but that itself is contradictory in its own way if viewed from another perspective.

All three viewpoints are consistent from their own beliefs, and inconsistent from either of the other two's viewpoints. You're being circular in your argument, defending your viewpoint by presuming the existence of the inconsistencies which only exist from your viewpoint. Here's what it ends up in syllogism form

There are inconsistencies which can only be seen from a certain perspective and
The perspective which can view these inconsistencies is best
Therefore: the viewpoint ZZ-Tops holds is the best

And

ZZ-Top's viewpoint is the best
In ZZ-Top's viewpoint, there are inconsistencies,
Therefore: there are inconsistencies.

Do you see the internal issue? In order to prove your viewpoint to be best, there must be inconsistencies; in order to prove the existence of the inconsistencies, your viewpoint must be best.

Sorry about the delayed response, I just got home for summer break and only now noticed the unfinished argumentative strain.

In my opinion, the philosophical inconsistencies aren't just in existence from the centrist viewpoint, but also from the populations' perspective, both of your examples are questions of whether a negative right to government non-interference in personal affairs exists. Yes, government action would be needed for both sides to some extent, but the end-state is one in which either the government actively interferes to prevent a crime (gay marriage or abortion), or in which it simply does not involve itself in the exercise of individual rights by citizens (allowing gay marriage or abortion). This is similar to how the 1st Amendment functions; yes, the government does have policies in place regarding the 1st Amendment, but specifically because it promises (in theory) non-interference with access to a specific set of rights.

By the way, this is the best viewpoint to analyze from since it is the one that most people will see the issue from, and also for the reason that government policies don't exist in a vacuum; they apply to someone, and that someone is the populace. Given my last two points, we can go back and see my initial claim being shown as true; the democrats seek to expand negative rights with regards to civil society, but seek to limit them in terms of economics, specifically with regards to individual choices as to how to allocate property. The Republicans seek what could be regarded as an opposite approach.

Philosophically both sides are problematic, since, as history has shown time and time again, governments that seek to limit rights in either of these two categories tend to limit rights in the other category as well over time. In order to more effectively manage a socialist or communist regime, individual rights tend to be marginalized, while theocracies and communitarian (I might be misusing this term, the intended concept is states that value society over individuals) societies tend to limit personal property rights more over time as conflicts between society and individuals become more pronounced. Picking to allow rights either economically (free markets/privately owned property) or socially (civil liberties) is an unstable arrangement, with a tendency to move towards having rights in neither category.