There is Little Difference Between the Democrat and Republican Parties

In the upcoming election, most "independents" don't want to vote for the candidates of either Party! The reason: both Parties are today defined by their most extreme factions and, at their cores; they are both the same, philosophically.

The Democrats, on the one hand, are dominated by their far-left liberals, who are bent on political-correctness (read that as don't offend any foreigners) and the failed concepts of socialism - socialism has failed everywhere in the world where it has ever been a dominant political force.

The Republicans, on the other hand, are dominated by their far-right "compassionate conservatives" who are bent on preserving the existing institutions of government under the mantel of "traditional religious values". They characterize their position as being based on a religiously-based calling. This essentially makes the Republicans socialists also, since the welfare give-away infrastructure already existed in this country. The Republicans claim to operate under the clarion-call of a "higher authority".

Essentially, neither of the existing Parties presents an effective alternative choice to the other. In just about every area of domestic and foreign policy, the "compassionate conservatives" controlling the Republican Party have stolen and repackaged the central philosophies of the traditional "social" Democrats and thanks to the revolution originally mounted by Newt Gingrich, they now market themselves as "the only sane alternative to the liberal left-wingers". They are NOT a real alternative philosophy!

Voters who cannot align themselves philosophically with either the existing far-left Democratic Party, or to the existing Compassionate Conservative dominated far-right Republican Party, are essentially adrift in the middle without any real Party choice.
I
t would appear that there are, numerically, many more voters in this "unaligned" stratum of the American political spectrum than there are those who are "philosophically aligned" with the other two Parties - combined. Unaligned voters just don't have anyone to identify WITH!

This situation has created massive confusion in the minds of most "unaligned" centrists, and limited choices when going to the polls. The result: undermining of the ability of the "unaligned" to determine what position a viable Party should project, as an alternative to a universal welfare state and a defense-only military establishment.

Consequently, the "unaligned" centrists either stay away from the voting booth because of their confusion, or they feel compelled to vote for an unacceptable choice of candidates based on one or two "emotional-appeal" issues like being for or against the war in Iraq; or being for or against abortion; or being for or against stem-cell research.

Consider the current state of U.S. fiscal policy: The "compassionate conservatives" have totally embraced the concept of the welfare state. They spend more on entitlement and give away programs than the far-left did throughout the Clinton administration - you'd think that the Democrats would be tickled to death about that. During Bush's time in office he has never vetoed a spending bill! Any spending bill!

The size of Government has actually grown under the Republicans - the traditional party of limited government. The only accomplishments of the Bush administration that have held government growth in check, has been the successful efforts of the "compassionate conservatives" to out-source welfare give-away programs to private groups and religious organizations.

This 'religious group' control over the apparent doing-of-good-deeds, on behalf of the seemingly sensitive government, only contributes to the Republican claims of being "compassionate". If there was NO religious affiliation to this welfare effort, the Democrats would probably support the efforts - at any rate, even if the programs are administered by NGOs (Non governmental organizations) these programs are still a feature of a welfare state.

The welfare state, regardless of its implementation scheme will continue to grow under either party. This fact is extremely disconcerting and troublesome to those in the center - both parties have embraced the welfare state as an alternative philosophy to limited government and individual freedoms (and the attendant requirements for personal responsibility).
The so-called conservatives have become the new defenders of the welfare state's rightful place in the American socio-economical reality. The only difference between the Democrats and the Republicans, today, on this welfare state issue, is Republicans contend that the programs are manifestations of traditional American virtues and then defend them as the basic stuff of America. Democrats want to see more government control (no religious affiliation) of the programs, and their extension to a wider population - to include all immigrants - which can then be the basis of liberal claims that the Democratic Party stands for the common man.

One can observe similar philosophical shifts in party positions on the issue of military preparedness and national defense.
There was once a time when conservatives wanted to only use our military for defense of our nation. Their defense philosophy, as best articulated by Eisenhower, was that when this nation becomes involved in a military conflict it must do so only with massive military force applied for the shortest period of time possible, to obtain victory. The liberals on the other hand, held that the use of the military as an instrument of foreign policy was not only appropriate, but necessary to assure the continued existence of our "American" institutions and the expansion of democracy to the third world.
Think about it - in the past, whenever this country has been actively involved in protracted conflicts: both "World Wars", the Korean conflict, or our massive involvement in Vietnam, the U.S. was presided over by Democratic administrations.

Today - in the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, the "compassionate conservatives" are the party advocating the extensive use of the military while the liberals are pushing a "cut and run" policy much like that practiced by Nixon and to a lesser degree Bush Sr. who refused to commit to pressing the Gulf-I conflict on into the confrontation and defeat of Iraq.
Today, one has a hard time discerning the differences between the national conservative and liberal platforms. The compassionate conservatives are indistinguishable from the liberal left except on a very few emotional issues that ought to not even be issues for public political debate (abortion, stem-cell research, the individual choice of people to include God or religion in their daily lives) - even in the schools this religious issue should be left to the local citizenry.

Compassionate conservatives are not open and forward about their socialist aims and programs - liberals are. Compassionate conservatives claim to be pro-business, pro-freedom and anti-big government. They're not. Compassionate conservatives have practiced a brand of "fiscal conservatism" that has resulted in rising deficits from tax cuts - combined with increased spending. Their mantle of "party of traditional American values" is really a pseudo-morality based on anti-abortion, protection traditional marriage laws and prayer in the schools - all issues that have no real place in National politics - these are local "morality" issues. At the very least these issues ought not to be the emotional factors that define national party platforms.

Liberals - the current far left - can't seem to really define a "party" position that has universal or even majority consensus among those who admit to being "aligned" with the liberal left. One cannot assert what it is that the so-called party leadership is FOR - only what they are against. What they are against seems to be everything that the compassionate conservatives are doing, or are contemplating doing.

If discerning the actual philosophical position of the so-called Democratic party leaders - like Kerry, Kennedy, Pelosi and Hillary Clinton - seems a bit confusing, just mix in the additionally baffling phenomena of the party allowing (even encouraging) the non-elected liberals of the radical left, such as the Hollywood and entertainment crowd, to espouse what it is that the "the liberal position" consists of.

If you disagree with is, please step forward and detail 10-15 planks in a party platform that states exactly what the current instantiation of the Democratic Party stands for??
I
t seems that Democrats today do not accept the truth that even if Gore had won the election in 2000 - and was reelected four years later - that practically nothing would be different today. The 9-1-1 attacks would have still happened - nothing inherent in a Gore Presidency would have stopped that. The subsequent reality of the unforeseen costs of Homeland Security - the TSA, increased airport and seaport security - the costs of two seasons of unusually damaging tropical weather, and the world-wide rise in fuel prices would still have happened. The administration - even under a Gore Presidency - would still have been forced to take a strong position against the world-wide terrorist movement - at no small cost.

The outcome of the Presidential elections, even if Gore had won and was reelected, would not have changed the fact that the Republicans control both the House and Senate. The ability of a Democratic administration to do anything differently than the current administration has done - working with a do-nothing Congress - could be debated; however it would not have brought us to a significantly different juncture than we are at today.

The main differences that would exist in this fantasy scenario would be that at this time during the election season, centrists and Republicans both would be blaming Democrats for the welfare-state spending. The so-called quagmire in Iraq would then be a Democratic problem. For some unfathomable reason, the Democratic leadership has been unable, or unwilling, to define any plan, whatsoever, for success in Iraq (if you ascribe to the position that it's currently failing). Simply getting out ain't a victory plan - we Vietnam veterans know that all too well.

It could be debated that without the Bush tax-cuts, the economy, instead of having the current positive measurement indicators, would have been significantly worse off because of the absence of sufficient reinvestment capital to fuel business growth - after all the Dow Jones Index is at an all-time high in spite of the world-wide oil price increases. However all that the increased tax collection on increased earnings has done is fund welfare programs and keep the budget deficit from looking twice as bad as it does now (it is about half of what financial experts, four years ago, predicted it would be today).

The "Conservatism" of the compassionate conservatives has certainly not been apparent during the past six years of this Republican administration - as John Lewis says, in his dissertation "Why I Will Not Vote for Any Republican", "Bush saw fit to veto one bill in six years-stem cell research". Beyond that, he has never met a government program he did not like.
So: where does that leave leaderless, middle-of-the-road, "non-aligned", "centrist", Americans? Sadly, they may still be wandering and looking for candidates to get behind for years to come, or for a leader (or redefined major party) which represents the centrist position. Centrists will likely be in this position forever if they continue to be complacent and don't, as a group become proactive within the two existing major parties as agents for change. The current trend of "sameness" under different marketing banners is not going to stop.

To effect change, each centrist must resolve to adopt the following approach: 1) Don't think of candidates as either Democrat or Republican - think "dump the incumbent"; 2) Learn who the incumbent is, and work for and support his or her opponent; 3) Continue to search for and support an Independent or Third Party national candidate that a "Centrist" can support for the house and/or senate - seek to force two-party incumbents to form coalitions with centrists; 4) Pressure state legislative representatives to abolish laws and regulations which work to, effectively, deny third-party candidates access to the ballot - also get them to commit to and support Initiative and Referendum laws which provide direct voter access to the ballots and facilitate circumvention of "do-nothing" state legislators; and 4) don't give up and get apathetic - individuals all moving in the same direction can make a difference if not deterred from their objective.