#im kinda just venting here about the sloppy Rhetoric the internet praises

[drunkoctopusinc]

Saw this on Instagram and not gonna lie- it kinda bugged me. Some of these points are accurate, some I disagree with but I see the argument for, others are out and out wrong. Usually the inaccuracies are due to purpously inflammatory phrasing, which is understandable since its a meme but the issues are to important for the language to stand fully uncriticed. Basically, I know it’s just a meme but I wanna pick it apart since this stuff is important and quite frankly I’m a little bored.

“Total support for Isreal”

This is true of the official platforms for each party. That being said I think it’s important to note you will find Democratic candidates and office holders with more moderated views on Isreal and (increasingly so) candidates who strongly support Palestine. There is no such moderation or diversity of opinion on the Republican side. If you want to cast your vote for someone who doesn’t support Isreal you might find that in a Democrat especially in the House of Reps, so be sure to look up your local candidates because they might surprise you on this one.

“Do Wall Streets bidding”

Wall Street is basically begging for Dodd-Frank to be repealed, and no Democrat is gonna do that. A Democratic administration created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and since 2010 there have been 3 separate bills introduced by Democrats to improve/reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act. (The most recent was a bi-patrician bill sponsored by Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), John McCain (R-AZ), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), and Angus King (I-ME)) I understand how a lack of success can make it feel like Democrats are just doing Wall Street’s bidding, but that’s not the case. There are certainly differences in the level of regulation Democrats are asking for, but the broad strokes is Democrats want regulations put on Wall Street, while Republicans believe Wall Street can be trusted to do whatever they want.

“Unlimited Military Spending”

Much to my chagrin, this is true. Regardless of party affiliation it’s good for any elected official to say they brought jobs to the district, and more fighter jets mean more jobs building fighter jets. No one wants to rock that boat.

“Hostility to Russia, Iran, & China”

This one has multiple parts with varing degrees of debatablity. For Russia the Obama Administration tried to soften relations but Putin basically responded “No thanks Toots” and proceeded to violated Ukraine’s sovrienty, back a dictator using chemical weapons on his own people, and meddle in our elections. Basically the Dems tried but it’s a two way street and Russia’s gotta be on board too. Meanwhile Trump and the Republicans seem to be fine with Russia paying militants to kill Americans and undermining democratic norms in the 2016 US elections as well as a bunch of other European elections so seems like they want to get along with Russia whatever it fucking takes. So I’d say there’s a pretty big difference on that one.

Regarding Iran, there’s not much difference between Democrats and Republicans. Both are skeptical about Iran and don’t want to risk the alliances we have with other middle eastern nations in order to tighten bonds with Iran. HOWEVER, the Iran Nuclear Treaty was a huge step forward in calming tensions which damn near every democrat supported. And the Republicans basically yeeted it into the sun for no good reason. So at least democrats don’t want to make shit worse with Iran. As for China 100% hositlites would have remained the same with a Dem and probably most Republicans. But at the moment Republicans support an active trade war with China which is only making our relations with them worse. So for both Iran and China the Dems gotta get at least some points for not wanting to make shit worse.

“Full Spectrum Dominance.”

Yes. Both parties want the US to a strong political and economic force on the world stage without any major foreign threats. (TBH I struggle to see the problem with this because that dominance could be used to give every nation wi-fi and tasty cookies just easily as to perpetuate rampant injustice especially when its so vauge as to what they mean by Full Spectrum Dominance. But I don’t have nothing against you if you don’t want the US to persue dominance as goal.)

“Let Money Rule politics”

Campaign finance reform is a complicated issue because there isn’t 1 clear answer for how to do it. Campaigning costs a lot of money and candidates have to get that money somehow, unfortunately there isn’t really an answer for how it needs to be done that can’t in some way be attacked for not going far enough or not solving the real problem. So while Democrats generally try to find solutions and create reform, it is perfectly understandable and reasonable to feel they aren’t actually solving anything. However I think it’s important note (given how important this years election is) that Joe Biden has been very consistent on voting for campaign finance reform for the past 40 years, even going so far as to create a system of public funding for congressional elections in the early 90s. So if this is a high priority issue for you Joe Biden has a strong record on it.

“Neoliberalism Rocks!”

I’ve found online the term “neoliberalism” is used to describe such a wide range of policies it’s becoming less and less clear exactly what a person means by saying “neoliberalism.” So how accurate this claim is really depends on how you define “neoliberal.” That caveats aside, traditionally both parties have their neoliberal cohorts, and they do wield a far bit of power since they usually are the “deal makers” who talk more with the other side and create the compromises which get broad enough support to pass. However, the Republican Party has been drifting away from neoliberal policies for some time and has been completely sprinting away from them since trump was elected. For example here are some policies self described neoliberals love which recent republicans have taken a massive shit on; Free Trade, easier immigration, and a carbon tax. Neoliberals are inherently in the middle so yes both parties have neoliberal segments (Bill Clinton, Bush Senior for example) but Republicans are rapidly running further and further right, so if not already accurate to say “Neoliberals universally identify as democrats” it will be soon.

“Spy on Everyone!”

This is a bit hyperbolic but yeah mostly. While there are officals on both sides who want to stop or at least curb the survalince state when talking about the respective parties as a whole there aren’t big differences on changing this, at least not public ones.

“Screw the Old and the Poor!”

This one is just so wildly overstated as to be impossible to really discuss/debate effectively. I could say this is false because both parties agree we should strive to eleminate poverty but they differ on how. I could also say this is true because neither party has proposed a solution which would actually help end poverty, or I could say this is false because the Democratic platform includes issues like raising the minimum wage and expanding the social safety net which will help the poorest Americans. There’s no way to really analyze for accuracy because its so broad and emotional that it’s really more of an opinion statement than anything. (To be clear, there’s nothing inherently wrong with such a statement. In many ways they are critical to the nations broader political discussion. it just doesn’t lend itself to what I’m looking to do with this post and I felt it would have been dismissive to just say “it’s an emotional argument so I don’t care”) The only substantive thing I can say here which still fits into my general structure is no candidate wants to do anything against old people because old people vote in big numbers. It’s the reason despite talk of cutting medicare and social security Republicans haven’t actually tried anything substantial on those issues.

“Oligarchy not democracy”

This is another one that gets caught up in definition. If you use the strictest definition of democracy and a broad definiton of Oligarchy then yes this is right but otherwise it really depends on how you define oligarchy. The majority of Americans have the right to vote, thus they have a say in what our government does. This would generally meet the most common definition of democracy and neither party wants to change that (at least not officially.) there is no bi partisan call for the wealthiest 1% or even the wealthiest 10% of Americans to have exclusive control over our governance. Of course that’s the most inflammatory version of this statement, and I doubt that’s what the person who wrote it was saying. The more likely definition of oligarchy this person was using is a government where an elite class hold a disproportionate share of political power rather all political power. In which case it’s very very hard to agrue the US isn’t an oligarchy. I mean even if we put aside the more heavily debated question of how strongly political power and money are, I think everyone would agree my senator has more political power than I do. Plus, the founders didn’t want “mob rule” they were terrified of a populist leader rising up, so they didn’t create a pure democracy. Instead they made republic, which one could argue is simultaneously an oligarchy and a democracy. This means when anyone looks to maintain the current american system even in the broadest strokes it could be agrued they’re supporting oligarchy over democracy. However you could just as easily argue they’re supporting democracy. The line between oligarchy and democracy aren’t as clear as we’d like them to be. (And of course when you bring the “how strongly are political power and money connected” debate back into the picture it only gets more obscured). Now, to finally get to my point, the degree to which the US is an oligarchy is unclear and so is the degree to which each party supports maintaining the oligarchical elements. However I think saying that either party doesn’t support democracy is inaccurate. BUT I also think it is vital that we recognize under Trump the Republican Party has tolerated repeated undermining of our democratic system risking serious and dangerous backsliding into totalitarianism. The Democratic Party has not engaged in this backsliding at all and has fought against it as much as they can, and you absolutely must understand that as you vote this fall.

“Vive US imperialism!”

Yeah this is pretty much spot on. I mean I don’t think either political party is looking to conquer Cuba or to steal Baja California from Mexico but yeah the bulk of people in each party are at the very least not invested in reducing what has been called “Neo-imperialism” which is almost certainly what this statement is referring to, so while I could get this on the technically but that would be disingenuous.

“outlaw third parties”

Third parties are legal. No one wants to make them illegal, the constitution also wouldnt let them. The problem is our voting system makes third parties mathematically unstrategic. You could argue they are functionally unallowed and there’s no insensitive for either party to change that so the idea here isn’t to far off, but outlawing third parties is such a bold claim, and that mathy disadvantage is drastically reduced in local races. So if you support a third party or want to create a third party, go for it. Just know that your efforts will be best spent starting local.

“Crush the left”

Pretty sure “the left” here means self described socialists and further left in which case yes. the establishment of both parties are still scared by the s-word and even worse the c-word because no one wants to be the USSR. But there are loads of people who would define the left as the democrats and the Democratic Party doesn’t want to crush Democratic Party. (It doesn’t mean to be a self destructive idiot but sometimes it just can’t help itself) so again I know what they’re going for here but little astrisk for other people might not.

“Regime change is cool.”

If regime change was something both parties liked there would be US troops in Venezuela right now. The oldest Democrats might not be out and out against all regime change but no democrat (and plenty of Republicans quiet frankly) want to repeat the Iraq War. When it comes to regime change worse case something democrats and republicans disagree on and best case something they both agree is bad.

TL;DR- there are key differences between the political parties, regardless of what a meme might say. It’s not the 90s anymore so those differences are pretty big and only getting bigger. To each there own on who and what they support, so do your research and learn which party and which candidates best represents your values.

PS- if it’s Donald Trump go jump of a bridge.