Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: What's your response to the "There's [almost] no difference between the two parties" comment? [View all]pampango
(24,692 posts)43. That Paul Krugman does not know what he is talking about when he disagrees with that assertion.
... each party is quite unified on major policy issues and these unified positions are very far from each other. The huge, substantive gulf between the parties will be reflected in the policy positions of whomever they nominate, and will almost surely be reflected in the actual policies adopted by whoever wins.
How did the parties get this far apart? Political scientists suggest that it has a lot to do with income inequality. As the wealthy grow richer compared with everyone else, their policy preferences have moved to the right and they have pulled the Republican Party ever further in their direction. Meanwhile, the influence of big money on Democrats has at least eroded a bit, now that Wall Street, furious over regulations and modest tax hikes, has deserted the party en masse. The result is a level of political polarization not seen since the Civil War.
On one side, suppose that Ms. Clinton is indeed the Democratic nominee. If so, you can be sure that shell be accused, early and often, of insincerity, of not being the populist progressive she claims to be.
On the other side, suppose that the Republican nominee is a supposed moderate like Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio. In either case wed be sure to hear many assertions from political pundits that the candidate doesnt believe a lot of what he says. But in their cases this alleged insincerity would be presented as a virtue, not a vice sure, Mr. Bush is saying crazy things about health care and climate change, but he doesnt really mean it, and hed be reasonable once in office. Just like his brother.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/13/opinion/it-takes-a-party.html
How did the parties get this far apart? Political scientists suggest that it has a lot to do with income inequality. As the wealthy grow richer compared with everyone else, their policy preferences have moved to the right and they have pulled the Republican Party ever further in their direction. Meanwhile, the influence of big money on Democrats has at least eroded a bit, now that Wall Street, furious over regulations and modest tax hikes, has deserted the party en masse. The result is a level of political polarization not seen since the Civil War.
On one side, suppose that Ms. Clinton is indeed the Democratic nominee. If so, you can be sure that shell be accused, early and often, of insincerity, of not being the populist progressive she claims to be.
On the other side, suppose that the Republican nominee is a supposed moderate like Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio. In either case wed be sure to hear many assertions from political pundits that the candidate doesnt believe a lot of what he says. But in their cases this alleged insincerity would be presented as a virtue, not a vice sure, Mr. Bush is saying crazy things about health care and climate change, but he doesnt really mean it, and hed be reasonable once in office. Just like his brother.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/13/opinion/it-takes-a-party.html
Of course, Krugman largely discussed the difference in the parties on economic issues.
We all know how different the parties are on social issues.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
90 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
What's your response to the "There's [almost] no difference between the two parties" comment? [View all]
Bucky
Apr 2015
OP
The exclusive right for women and their doctors to make decisions regarding their bodies.
ScreamingMeemie
Apr 2015
#3
Well, it was a convincing two word response to a serious topic... until the poster brought Black Sabbath into it.
Fred Sanders
Apr 2015
#76
The issues on which the two parties differ the least are, in general, those which most affect
nomorenomore08
Apr 2015
#49
I tell them that's why everyone needs to vote, even if we just write-in a name.
canoeist52
Apr 2015
#13
I am totally against the TPP but there are a lot of immediate issues that effect those of us on the
jwirr
Apr 2015
#88
What's your response to the "There's [almost] no difference between the two parties" comment?
DeSwiss
Apr 2015
#15
not to mention the fuggin'supreme court. it is a false statement, they are both alike.
seabeyond
Apr 2015
#16
You got the numero uno issue right up there in the front of the line.. The Environment.
Cha
Apr 2015
#23
The other day I repsonded to a post on FB that said "You had to be an idiot to vote for Obama"
A HERETIC I AM
Apr 2015
#27
Obama raised taxes on the wealthy (top 2 brackets). When did any Repug do that?
progree
Apr 2015
#35
It's immature and generally spoken by people who don't know much about policy
alcibiades_mystery
Apr 2015
#37
After living through the BushCheney era, after almost 13 years at DU, sometimes....
Hekate
Apr 2015
#41
I don't respond, and I never take anything they have to say seriously after that.
Lil Missy
Apr 2015
#42
That Paul Krugman does not know what he is talking about when he disagrees with that assertion.
pampango
Apr 2015
#43
I don't see many women, LGBT or people of color making that argument. Let's start there.
stevenleser
Apr 2015
#45
I don't know I always wanted to see what it was like to live during a Theocracy
LynneSin
Apr 2015
#56
Oh, FFS. Would you get with the program? At least she didn't say "them job-killing regulations"
progree
Apr 2015
#66
Maybe the "Left Column" is dedicated to Hillary's wonderfulness because it's the first week
progree
Apr 2015
#69
Then there should be a Primaries section - she shouldn't hijack the Left section.nt
daredtowork
Apr 2015
#71
I would say I agree that economically there is little difference between the two parties.
liberal_at_heart
Apr 2015
#72
Wisconsin Republicans introduce bill to require photo IDs for food stamp recipients
progree
Apr 2015
#73
If there are those who says there is not any difference in the two parties, if they are speaking
Thinkingabout
Apr 2015
#78
It tells me they don't care about the lives or rights of the vast majority of Americans
BainsBane
Apr 2015
#85