The Partisan Divide on Issues

[Classic-Xer]

(09-05-2020, 12:40 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(09-04-2020, 11:34 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-04-2020, 12:04 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: If you valued democracy, you wouldn't be placing the integrity of it at risk by purchasing and trading for votes...

Another note about this statement, again.

We Democrats and progressives do need the votes of disadvantaged groups. So we are careful to include concern for their interests and policies that benefit them in order to shore up their votes for us. As I said before, politics involves making alliances and coalitions, especially party politics. And since progressives of all races and creeds naturally believe and agree with justice and the rights of people against power, people in disadvantaged groups are our natural allies and colleagues, and are a natural and valued part of the progressive party and/or faction. You call it purchasing and trading for votes, which implies you don't want disadvantaged groups in your coalition, and don't offer any concern for their interests or policies that benefit them. So instead you and those on your side of the aisle cater to those who scapegoat, fear or resent these groups. Seems a natural trade-off, although not a pleasant and I hope not a lasting one.

I would add the conservatives also trade positions on the issues for votes.  They have always been the party of the Robber Barons.  The Robber Barons have wealth, but not that many votes.  They have to take up populist positions in order to survive.  They have an advantage in accepting 'campaign finance contributions', but they need votes.

Thus, they became the strong on military party when Mao won in China and Truman was unwilling to start a land war in Asia.  They became the racist party when LBJ allied with MLK for the black vote, going with the civil rights legislation and the war on poverty.  As there turned out to be more dedicated racists than border line poor workers, this ended the progressive era.  

We will see if that last it remains true in the modern era.  The Neo Cons already went down when the Iraq War went proxy insurgent.  We will have to see how the racists do. 

It is just a question of which groups the party seeks to attract.  With nukes, insurgent wars and non violent change, it is less beneficial to be the party of using force to get your way.  Too many people have realized that boots on the ground are a bad idea.  When a bunch of people are protesting racial violent policing, it is less effective to be the party of racism and violence.  They can continue to try to attract votes by placing the race card.  Will they succeed?

But to prove this to Classic it will have to become painfully obvious.  He is obsessed with violence, thus sees violence as solving all problems.  Not true anymore.

The Neo Cons are still around but no longer in charge as far as foreign policy. Trump is committed to peace through strength or walk lightly and carry a big stick. Right now, I'd have to say that the Democratic is the more racist and more lawless and more violent of the two parties. Granted, the American right is mainly idle and hasn't turned to violence and begun supporting violence yet.