No difference between Republicans and Democrats

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • WestGranger West Valley City, Utah
    April 12, 2012 2:24 a.m.

    It is true that by some measures that Bush was more liberal than Clinton. Bush's prescription drug program was a massive expansion of government. In contrast, after midterm defeats in congress for democrats, Clinton did sign some very conservative bills when he was president with a republican House and Senate.
    Despite this the directions of both parties has never been so different. Democrats are leaning toward a more socialist style big government and republicans, with the wake up call they received from the Tea Party, are headed for fiscal responsibility and a more limited federal government.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 11, 2012 10:43 p.m.

    If "liberals PROpose, the conservatives IMpose"... how do you explain the Obama supporter and Leftist Union big-wig Andy Stern saying on MSNBC, "If we can't convince the people with the power of persuasion, we'll use the persuasion of power"? (google it and watch it)

    I think all sides IMpose when they can. That's why the founding fathers setup our political system to almost require consensus of BOTH parties and guarantee a balance between the two... not power completely controled and consolidated in one party (like we had the first two years of the Obama Administration)

    The parties really aren't that different when given power.

  • RagnarL4 Kaysville, UT
    April 11, 2012 10:18 p.m.

    @Joe Blow
    It sounds like you might agree with this saying: "That which the liberals PROpose, the conservatives IMpose."

    Mr. Larsen,

    You have come to a correct conclusion, but your reasons are not the fundamental reasons the parties are the same. You must evaluate their fundamental beliefs.

    The two parties share this foundational premise: you are your brother's keeper.

    No candidate from either party would ever say "no one is his brother's keeper".

    If it is considered moral to be your brother's keeper and immoral not to be, then you can justify almost any policy, any tax, any spend as long as it's for your brother, for your neighbor.

    The Republicans' position is almost always weaker than the Democrats because when they try to stand against some Democrat proposal, they have no grounds upon which to do so; they have too often capitulated to keeping their brother. How then can they say "no" to the new proposed manner of keeping him? It is very hard... and becoming harder.

    We need candidates who stands up for not keeping and not being kept.

  • WHAT NOW? Saint George, UT
    April 11, 2012 8:36 p.m.


    In addition to your premise, consider the fact that outside of Ginsberg and Breyer, ALL justices of the SCOTUS who served during that 2001 to 2006 Republican majority period were appointed by Republican Presidents.

    And yet, no repeal of Roe V Wade.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 11, 2012 2:43 p.m.

    LDS Liberal,
    I agree NIETHER party wants to FIX their WEDGE issues... They NEED them.

    If they SOLVE Them... what will they use to get elected NEXT go round?

    Like you said... BOTH parties have them. And NEITHER party wants them fixed. They just want to TALK about them. The need them around to use as a tool in the next election. Don't plan on party really trying to fix these issues. They are party dogama and re-election rhetoric mostly.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 11, 2012 2:07 p.m.


    All the state abortion measures and the federal repeal of DADT suggest that this they seek progress on the issue. Only a senate vote blocking it stopped Blunt/Rubio from allowing any employer to deny healthcare coverage for any medical procedure/issue they don't care for.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    April 11, 2012 1:02 p.m.

    2 bits
    Cottonwood Heights, UT

    I liked you comment about “wedge issues” the most. Both sides have them, and use them.
    The fact is neither want them fixed, it’s the only soap box they have.

    But keep in mind,
    choosing the “lesser” of 2 evils – is still choosing Evil.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 11, 2012 12:50 p.m.

    I agree that party_partisan politicians are pretty much the same (regardless of the party they are partisan for). It's true that Democrats are not very different, or any "better" than Republicans (just based on their party). But there ARE individuals who are WAY different... but you can't find them by just looking at the letter by their name. There are good people that share my concerns and values in both parties. The PARTYs aren't really that different when you get down to it, but individuals are. The trick is putting the party_partisanship asside and finding the good individuals.

    I like to think I'm an "independent", but there are never any "Independent" candidates that are viable, mainly becuase independents are not as groupable as party_partisans and therefore they can't muster partisan support like the big_two by just pulling out a traditional wedge_issue (like Abortion, Taxes, Immigration, 2nd Ammendment, Welfare, Government Spending, etc). I admit I usually end up voting for a Republican. Because while there is LITTLE difference between the two... the areas where there is a little difference... are very important to me.

  • Anti Bush-Obama Washington, DC
    April 11, 2012 12:34 p.m.

    Both parties are in a race to see who can destroy the constitution the fastest and the most efficently

  • Midvaliean MIDVALE, UT
    April 11, 2012 10:55 a.m.

    Although they have different stances on social issues, a closer examination shows us that they do little or nothing about them. In Bush's presidency the GOP held the house the senate and the Presidency. This was their chance to put money where their mouth was, and make abortion illegal. Nothing of the sort happened. Business as usual for decades. War, corporate interests, lining pockets, pork. Who is the new boss, same as the old boss. What they say isn't what to pay attention to, what they do is.

  • Tekakaromatagi Dammam, Saudi Arabia
    April 11, 2012 10:46 a.m.

    Raplh Nader was right when he said that the only difference is the speed that their knees hit the floor when the lobbyists come calling.

    Isn't it great that all the liberals and conserviates on this page agree. I align with the Democrats view of compassion and helping little people. But the Democrats have not really wanted to help the little people -- or at least, only after the paying campaign contributors have been taken care of.

    The Republicans problems is that they are either to dumb to have recognized the huge value hole in America's politics where the Democrats used to be, or they are too tied to their special interests to take advantage of it.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    April 11, 2012 10:21 a.m.

    No differences?

    Obamacare, medicare, tax increases/decreases, regulation/deregulation, alternative energy/drill baby drill, environmental regulation/get rid of EPA, prochoice/pro-life, contraception coverage/bosses controlling it, gay rights, citizens united...
    the idea that the two parties are the same is absurd.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 11, 2012 9:38 a.m.

    The only difference between the current breed of politicians is their outward appearance, under their skin they are all businessmen with the personal goal of self enrichment.

    The problem of that is they are willing to deprive other Americans, along with the rest of the world, of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in order achieve their goal.

    The best example is the way they have prevented government by the people by restricting the ability of people to vote and by making government representation a mater of who’s got the most money.

    The kind of world they are proposing is like the world just south of our southern border, private interests are the rulers and not the people’s government. It’s much like the world we fought the revolutionary war to escape.

  • Hank Pym SLC, UT
    April 11, 2012 9:35 a.m.

    The **only** difference is what special interests keep each party on a short leash.

  • Gildas LOGAN, UT
    April 11, 2012 7:33 a.m.

    There is a whole lot in what you say, Clark.

    In deficit spending, bailing out big banks, warmongering, contempt for the people, defunding of social security, and general unreliability and hypocrisy, it's tweedledum and tweedledee.

    There are honorable exceptions in a few individual candidates.

  • Midvaliean MIDVALE, UT
    April 11, 2012 6:51 a.m.

    They are the same. They use Buzz words to incite votes, but when push comes to shove, they do nothing except go to war.

  • JoeBlow Miami Area, Fl
    April 11, 2012 4:52 a.m.

    "True, Republicans and Democrats are very different when it comes to issues such as taxpayer money, government regulations and certain social issues,"

    That is where you are historically wrong.

    The GOP TALKS a good fiscal game, but history has shown that they are just as quick to spend taxpayer money and to promote Govt Regulations.

    Examples -

    Spending - Medicare Part D. Passed by complete GOP control. Largest entitlement program since Social Security. And UNfunded, I might add.

    Govt Regulation-

    - Insurance Mandate was a GOP idea first put forth by the Heritage Foundation and supported by vast majority of Republicans (including Hatch)
    - CFL Light bulb ban and Low Flow Toilets - GOP signed legislation
    - Mandated medical treatment at Emergency Room - Signed by Reagan

    There is very little historically between how the GOP and the Democrats govern.

    And it is much greater than just how they treat religion.

  • Roland Kayser Cottonwood Heights, UT
    April 11, 2012 12:13 a.m.

    Bruce Bartlett, a senior economic adviser to Ronald Reagan and a top Treasury Dept. official in the administration of George Bush Sr. described the difference between the parties this way: Republicans are insane, Democrats are spineless wimps who won't stand up for themselves.