Random Election 2008 stuff

Not in the sense of white supremacist patriarchy being the conceptual foundation for the patronizing enslavement of people of color.

Doc did not really fool me ... I just happen to believe that the underlying premise/hope of the democratic party (in General) is to enslave us all with socialism.
Tax away 100% of the wealth and give each person his/her welfare check ... make the whole country dependant on government for their every need.

But in the sense which Tosk points out in the quote above, YES, I do think that the contemporary American Democratic Party tend toward policies and rhetoric which would promote an "enslavement" of the American people, and in particular, an enslavement of the entrepreneur, the business-owner and the impoverished to the govt. On the one hand, the rich would be expected to submit to the govt model of wealth redistribution and regulation of their profit-seeking efforts. On the other, the poor would be expected to be socialized (meaning taught/habituated) into social roles of learned helplessness, dependency and cynical relative-deprivation. This is a generalization, so I don't imagine that it applies to every single Dem politician or Dem policy, but it is the general tone of the contemporary Democratic party in the U.S.

Now, you have to ask yourself WHY? Why is the contemporary Republican party (vis a vis a relative comparison with the contempary Democratic party):

3) putatively pro small government (though I think they've slipped considerably on this point since the beginning of the War on Terror) and anti-socialistic intervention into individual lives

If we trace the ancestry of these two parties, for the contemporary Republican party,we are led back through the Whig Party, to the merging of the "National Republican Party" with elements of the Demoratic-Republican parties disintegration in 1824, and finally (primarily) back to the "Federalist Party" which was the brainchild of Alexander Hamilton. In doing this ancestral tracing we can see that the contemporary Republican party shows much continuity with its historical predecessors:

The Federalists were dominated by conservative businessmen and merchants in the major cities who supported a strong national government [note in the context of the nascent U.S., this was NOT equivalent to pro-Big Govt., it is simply pro-Federal as opposed to pro-Republic in which states {i.e., "special interest" groups} have more autonomy]. The party was closely linked to the modernizing, urbanizing, financial policies of Alexander Hamilton. These policies included the funding of the national debt [again, in the context of a brand new nation, not the same thing as "Big Govt" big spending] and also assumption of state debts incurred during the Revolutionary War, the incorporation of a national Bank of the United States, [read: "pro-finance" as opposed to being suspicious of banking] the support of manufactures and industrial development, and the use of a tariff to fund the Treasury. In foreign affairs the Federalists opposed the French Revolution, engaged in the "Quasi War" (an undeclared naval war) with France in 1798-99, sought good relations with Britain and sought a strong army and navy. Ideologically the controversy between Republicans and Federalists [note, at this stage a "Republican" is actually an ancestor of the Jacksonian Democrats, and through that lineage an ancestor of the modern Democratic Party] stemmed from a difference of principle and style. In terms of style the Federalists distrusted the public, thought the elite should be in charge, and favored national power over state power. [again, points with which there is clear continuity right up through Eisenhower, Reagan, and Booshmeister]. Republicans [meaning the ancestors of contemporary "Democrats"] distrusted Britain, bankers, merchants and did not want a powerful national government

There is an historical theme displayed in the string of parties that leads up the contemporary Republican party, and you can follow it more or less in bold in the quote above.

In contrast, the contemporary U.S. Democratic Party originated in and can trace its roots back to the Democratic-Republican Party founded by Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison

The Democratic-Republican Party was founded by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison around 1792. It became the dominant political party until the 1820s, when it split into competing factions, one of which became the modern-day Democratic Party. Its members identified the party as the Republicans, Jeffersonians, Democrats,^[1] or combinations of these (Jeffersonian Republicans, etc.).^[2]

Jefferson and Madison created the party in order to oppose the economic and foreign policies of the Federalists [read: "the origins of the two-party system in America, an ongoing theme into the present day] a party created a year or so earlier by Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton. Foreign policy issues were central; the Democratic-Republican party opposed the Jay Treaty of 1794 with Britain (then at war with France) and supported good relations with France [mere coincidence vis a vis the 2004 election Kerry-France vs Bush-Blair rivalries? I think not. Since the Revolution, France has been the seed-bed of truly radical Western socialism, and remains so to this day much more than Britain. True, after WWII, the conservative {read "Ancien Regime"} order took a major hit in British politics, but with Thatcher much of that was reversed. True enough, today Britain represents much more of a melding of Classical Conservative the Socialist/Liberal philosophies] before 1801. The party insisted on a strict construction of the Constitution, and denounced many of Hamilton's proposals (especially the national bank) as unconstitutional.^{[citation needed]} [observe continuity with contemporary Dem parties proclaimed opposition to big money] The party promoted states' rights and the primacy of the yeoman farmer over bankers, industrialists, merchants, and other monied interests. [observe obvious continuities with contemporary Rep-Dem rivalries on finance, big money, industry, tax, and playing nanny-state to the 'little guy'] From 1792 to 1816 the party opposed such Federalist policies as high tariffs, a navy, military spending, a national debt, and a national bank. After the military defeats of the War of 1812, however, the party split on these issues. Many younger party leaders, notably Henry Clay, John Quincy Adams and John C. Calhoun, became nationalists and wanted to build a strong national defense.^[3] Meanwhile, the "Old Republican" faction led by John Randolph of Roanoke, William H. Crawford and Nathaniel Macon continued to oppose these policies. By 1828, the Old Republicans were supporting Andrew Jackson against Clay and Adams.

The party's elected presidents were Thomas Jefferson (1800 and 1804), James Madison (1808 and 1812), and James Monroe (1816 and 1820). The party soon dominated Congress and most state governments outside of New England. By 1820, the Federalists were no longer acting as a national party; there was little to hold the Democratic-Republican Party together. William H. Crawford in 1824 was the last nominee by the Congressional nominating caucus; but the majority of the party boycotted the caucus. Jackson finished first in the Electoral College, but had no majority; Adams, Crawford, and Clay followed in that order; after which Clay and his friends (since Clay was no longer eligible) supported Adams. The Jacksonian faction became the basis of the present Democratic Party; the Adams-Clay faction, or National Republicans, were later absorbed into the Whig coalition which broke up before the American Civil War.

1) the role of special interest groups (States, minority groups like gays, ethnic minorities, etc.) compared to Federal interests

2) preference for agrarianism (which, pre-ACW means: slave-based plantation economy with the "astute" Jeffersonian/Jacksonian miscegnationist "gentleman" patriarch holding reign over all wombs in his domain . . . ) vs. industrialism and urbanism

3) Foreign policy: more allegiance with more conservatively organized Constitutional Monarchy Great Britain vs more allegiance with more liberal Republican France.

4) pro-Socialism vs. anti-Socialism, a large theme that is embodied in each of the preceding points by degree, but deserves to be explicated as a separate point. Contemporary Republicans and their historical ancestors are linked together with a largely unbroken tradition of basing political philosophy on the premise that the "average Joe Sixpack" is probably not too trustworthy, and if left to his own devices will gladly play the role of slacker parasite, thus an opposition to safety nets, and a more competitive sense that 'let each individual forge his own path to life liberty and pursuit of happiness.' Democrats and their ancestors exhibit an ongoing tradition of catering to special interest groups, first white-yeoman farmers who loved to plant their seeds in the rich soils of their lands and enslaved African mistresses, along with the individual States. Later this became an opposition to immigrants (as they represented a threat to southern slave-based agrarianism) and later still pandering to newer special interest groups: slackers, hippies, youth, ethnic "minorities," Unions.

Throughout much of it's history it was a major proponent of slavery. Ok. Tell me then, what relevance does this statement have to today's world? Any, whatsoever? I just don't get what your point is. Things have changed, bro. The world is not static, as you seem to be implying here with your condemnations of the Democratic party.

See above. You are falsely assuming that if things are not "static" that there is no significance to historical continuity. Yes, details change, and even big themes change, but in large part, I observe a distinct continuity in the major themes of these two political camps in American history which we might label "Conservative" (in a truly Edmund Burke sort of sense) vs. "Liberal" (in the more socialistic Rousseau, Thomas More, Karl Marx sort of tradition).

Yes they are and perhaps you have also noted that the death rate on American roads has dropped appx 10% for each dollar increase in the price of gas? 80% of which is in the 18 - 25 year old drivers.
Lets raise the price to $10 per gallon if dad has to use the entire gas budget to get to work and back, and the kids have to walk or take the bus, just think of the lives we could save ... think of the children.

Or! We could just raise the driving age to 26 as it logically should be based on what we now know about the maturation of the human brain! w00t

I agree with you that we need both sides ... I just wish they would compromise more for the benefit of the whole country rather than hold out for their faction and to hell with the country.

I fundamentally disagree with the two-party system that has dominated American political life since the beginning. What we need are AMERICANS who think for themselves, and force politicians to do the same thing. Forming into allegiances is all fine and good, but when an allegiance becomes a band wagon, and party policies become something that is unthinkingly, and uncritically gone along with for the sake of belonging, then whatever benefit derives from having the two-sides as polar balances of one another is entirely lost through the stupidity of the herd.

I implore ALL OF YOU. STOP! belonging to political parties. Be brave. Be independent, and tell anyone who tries to coerce you via some 12th grader peer pressure tactics that "I vote for whomever I think is the best candidate, irrespective of political party labels. Indeed, I scorn the very existence of American political parties."