On 02-Nov-08 1:05, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 23:37:22 +0100, andrel wrote:
> 
>> What helps for me is that
>> democrats put the need of the people first (or at least they suggest
>> that) while republicans put the need of the nation first (assuming that
>> the interest of themselves coincides with the interest of the nation).
> 
> That's an interesting perspective - but it implies that the Democrats do 
> not put the needs of the nation first; I think you could sum the ideology 
> up by saying that the Democrats put the needs of the nation first, but 
> define the nation as the sum of its people.  The Republicans put the 
> needs of the nation first, but (at least economically) the belief there 
> is that if they take care of the upper class, the rest will take care of 
> itself.  (But I know that'll draw some flack from people in that party 
> over that definition as well).

That may or may not be more true than my rule of thumb, but it almost 
destroys
democrat <-> people/voters
republican <-> nation
For me the main value is that I do not live in the US, so the party 
lines have not been part of my upbringing. The problem for me (and 
possibly Andy, although it could also be his habit of living under 
stones) is that in my country the two concepts are not mutual exclusive. 
Indeed our republicans are republicans *because* they are fundamentalist 
democrats. Still, when I want to guess which party in the US wants to 
reform the medical system and which one is most likely to start a war, 
it helps a lot.

Post a reply to this message