I keep seeing/hearing more and more people who have a misunderstanding of the basic premises behind the Republican/Democratic parties. For those of you who care, here are what the parties stand for...or are
supposed to stand for. (Not saying that either party has a good representation running for president currently). And if you don't care...just skip this post altogether--it is VERY long ;-).
Republicans: (from Wikipedia)
Founded in 1854 by anti-slavery expansion activists and modernizers, the Republican Party rose to prominence with the election of Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican president. The party presided over the American Civil War and Reconstruction and was harried by internal factions and scandals toward the end of the 19th century. Today, the Republican Party supports a conservative platform (as far as American politics are concerned), with further foundations in economic liberalism, fiscal conservatism, and social conservatism.
-------------------------------------
Democrats: (from Wikipedia)
The Democratic Party traces its origins to the Democratic-Republican Party, founded by Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and other influential opponents of the Federalists in 1792. Since the division of the Republican Party in the election of 1912, it has consistently positioned itself to the left of the Republican Party in economic as well as social matters. The economically left-leaning activist philosophy of Franklin D. Roosevelt, which has strongly influenced [Modern] liberalism, has shaped much of the party's economic agenda since 1932. Roosevelt's New Deal coalition usually controlled the national government until the 1970s. The civil rights movement of the 1960s has continued to inspire the party's liberal principles,[2] despite having lost the more conservative South in the process.
---------------------------------------------
Mommy's oversimplified definitions: [in general]
Republicans want less government involvement
Democrats want more government involvement
------------------------------------------------
Issues: ("Traditional" Views In General)
Abortion:
Republicans: Pro-life
Democrats: Pro-abortion
BIBLE:
Psalm 139:13,
Ecclesiastes 11:5, Jeremiah 1:4-5, Exodus 21: 22-23Candidates for presidency 2008:
abortion(Had to add this article in here....)Finances:
Republicans: Reduce taxes/reduce government programs
Democrats: Increase taxes (ideally on the wealthy)/increase government programs
BIBLE:
1 Corinthians 4:2,
Romans 13:8,
Luke 14:28,
Proverbs 22:7,
Proverbs 13:22Candidates for presidency 2008:
Budget and Spending
Corporations:
Republicans: Against regulating corporations/anti-union
Democrats: For regulating corporations/ pro-union
BIBLE:
Romans 13:1-2Candidates for presidency 2008:
CorporationsCrime/Punishment:Republicans: Less laws/stiffer punishment for law breakers
Democrats: More laws/looser punishment for law breakers
BIBLE:
Genesis 9:5-6,
Exodus 20:13,
Romans 13:1-5,
Numbers 35:15-34,
Exodus 21-23,
Acts 10:34-36Candidates for presidency 2008:
Crime/PunishmentEnvironment:Republicans: For being good stewards of the environment, but keeping people as first--and making sure that science is factual and supported before moving forward on recommendations.
Democrats: For being good stewards of the environment, but where people and nature come into conflict, (where possible) believe people should be removed to allow nature to cure itself.
BIBLE:
Genesis 1:28,
Genesis 2:15,
Proverbs 12:10,
Romans 1:18-25Candidates for presidency 2008:
EnvironmentOkay...a couple of other little articles I feel I need to put here simply because it is a common misconception that Republicans don't care about the environment: Global Warming, Who's House is This?, Who's "Greener"Gay/Lesbian/Transgendered Rights:
Republicans: Sexual orientation is a choice and/or you cannot visibly be discriminated by it, thus it should not be protected under discrimination laws--what goes on in the bedroom should stay in the bedroom/ Against gay marriage.
Democrats: Sexual orientation should be protected under discrimination laws/hate crime laws/ For gay marriage.
BIBLE:
Genesis 19:1-13,
Romans 1:26-27,
1 Corinthians 6:9-11,
Genesis 2:21-24,
Matthew 19:4-6
Candidates for presidency 2008:
LGBT Rights
Gun ControlRepublicans: For upholding the
2nd Amendment right to bear arms for self-defense
Democrats: For stricter gun control--including taking guns away from citizens in high crime areas
BIBLE:
Exodus 22:2,
Luke 22: 35-38,
1 Timothy 5:8Candidates for presidency 2008:
Gun Control
Illegal Immigration: (one of the places where I feel our current candidates are on the "wrong" sides for their parties...)
Republicans: Send them back/strengthen our borders
Democrats: Open borders
BIBLE:
Romans 13:1-7Candidates for presidency 2008:
ImmigrationIraq War
Republicans: While not "for" war, feel that this war was necessary and that an early pull-out will cause disastrous consequences. Various opinions as to how to end the war or what is considered "early"
Democrats: Feel that diplomacy should always be used instead of war. Where war is necessary, it should end as soon as possible.
BIBLE:
Ecclesiastes 3:1-3,8,
Numbers 31:1-24,
Luke 21:9-10,
1 Samuel 17,
Romans 13:1-5,
1 Timothy 2:1-2Candidates for presidency 2008:
Iraq WarJobs/Unemployment/Welfare
Republicans: Less government involvement
Democrats: More government programs
BIBLE:
2 Thessalonians 3:10-15,
1 Timothy 5:8,
Proverbs 14:21,
Matthew 5:42,
Matthew 25:34-40,
Proverbs 21:25,
Proverbs 26:12-16,
Proverbs 20:4,
Proverbs 13:4,
Ephesians 4:28,
Acts 20:34-35Candidates for presidency 2008:
Jobs/Unemployment /Welfare----------------------------------------------------------
Okay...those are basic issues that I feel people care the most about and/or I could find clear guidelines in the Bible about them. Probably no one besides me will read all of these verses, but I found it interesting looking them up. I feel everyone should know what the Bible says on a topic that they are voting on--where possible.
One more article. I get irritated when I hear people say something along the lines of: Republicans just want to make the rich richer and the poor poorer. Or that Republicans only are concerned about the welfare of the rich. That is completely biased and unfair. Here is just one really good article about that. It is so good in fact that I am just copying it and pasting it here.
Source:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.htmlConservatives More Liberal Givers
By George Will
WASHINGTON -- Residents of Austin, Texas, home of the state's government and flagship university, have very refined social consciences, if they do say so themselves, and they do say so, speaking via bumper stickers. Don R. Willett, a justice of the state Supreme Court, has commuted behind bumpers proclaiming "Better a Bleeding Heart Than None at All," "Practice Random Acts of Kindness and Senseless Beauty," "The Moral High Ground Is Built on Compassion," "Arms Are For Hugging," "Will Work (When the Jobs Come Back From India)," "Jesus Is a Liberal," "God Wants Spiritual Fruits, Not Religious Nuts," "The Road to Hell Is Paved With Republicans," "Republicans Are People Too -- Mean, Selfish, Greedy People" and so on. But Willett thinks Austin subverts a stereotype: "The belief that liberals care more about the poor may scratch a partisan or ideological itch, but the facts are hostile witnesses."
Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.
If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data.
They include these findings:
-- Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
-- Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.
-- Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.
-- Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.
-- In the 10 reddest states, in which Bush got more than 60 percent majorities, the average percentage of personal income donated to charity was 3.5. Residents of the bluest states, which gave Bush less than 40 percent, donated just 1.9 percent.
-- People who reject the idea that "government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality" give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition.
Brooks demonstrates a correlation between charitable behavior and "the values that lie beneath" liberal and conservative labels. Two influences on charitable behavior are religion and attitudes about the proper role of government.
The single biggest predictor of someone's altruism, Willett says, is religion. It increasingly correlates with conservative political affiliations because, as Brooks' book says, "the percentage of self-described Democrats who say they have 'no religion' has more than quadrupled since the early 1970s." America is largely divided between religious givers and secular nongivers, and the former are disproportionately conservative. One demonstration that religion is a strong determinant of charitable behavior is that the least charitable cohort is a relatively small one -- secular conservatives.
Reviewing Brooks' book in the Texas Review of Law & Politics, Justice Willett notes that Austin -- it voted 56 percent for Kerry while he was getting just 38 percent statewide -- is ranked by The Chronicle of Philanthropy as 48th out of America's 50 largest cities in per capita charitable giving. Brooks' data about disparities between liberals' and conservatives' charitable giving fit these facts: Democrats represent a majority of the wealthiest congressional districts, and half of America's richest households live in states where both senators are Democrats.
While conservatives tend to regard giving as a personal rather than governmental responsibility, some liberals consider private charity a retrograde phenomenon -- a poor palliative for an inadequate welfare state, and a distraction from achieving adequacy by force, by increasing taxes. Ralph Nader, running for president in 2000, said: "A society that has more justice is a society that needs less charity." Brooks, however, warns: "If support for a policy that does not exist ... substitutes for private charity, the needy are left worse off than before. It is one of the bitterest ironies of liberal politics today that political opinions are apparently taking the place of help for others."
In 2000, brows were furrowed in perplexity because Vice President Al Gore's charitable contributions, as a percentage of his income, were below the national average: He gave 0.2 percent of his family income, one-seventh of the average for donating households. But Gore "gave at the office." By using public office to give other peoples' money to government programs, he was being charitable, as liberals increasingly, and conveniently, understand that word.