Democratic Underground

Republicratic Crap
July 16, 2001
by achildleftbehind

This article is a response to They're Both Republicrats, by Norbert Radtke

Much like Mr. Radtke, I also embrace all things left-leaning, especially the DU. However, I must disagree with his perspective on our two party system. He suggests that the two parties are really a "two faced one party" Considering the views and actions of our politicians, the differences should be as obvious as those between the last ice age and the current global warming.

Though our past president presided over such blunders as the creation of NAFTA and the WTO. We must put things in a better and more realistic perspective. Could anyone tell me which president presided over the greatest prosperity since the '70s? Or which president worked his ass off attempting to maintain peace across the globe? Or how about the president that signed myriad executive orders protecting our precious environmental treasures, before the Shrubbery was selected? I'll tell you who it was: CLINTON Whatever the media said is not his fault and has no place in a case against him. If you want to talk about someone who suppressed public opinion, if you want to discuss someone who REALLY has the media yelling Orwellian drivel, look no farther than the current No-Brainer in Chief.

As far as I can tell, the rest of the piece was an anti-corporation rant with little relevance to what was supposed to be the point. But while on the subject of corporations and their influence on the political system, allow me to make another distinction between the two parties. The Democratic Party is currently the party of campaign finance reform. Though the bill was cosponsored by a Democrat and a moderate Republican, the majority of it's support is from the Democrats. Let's take this time to examine the policies of two of the nations most prominent politicians: Al Gore and George Bush.

On the environment, Gore has advocated the Kyoto treaty and other measures to reduce global warming. Bush has done nothing but undermine these measures and thus the planet's well being.

Gore and Bush supported a tax cut, can't be all that different right? WRONG. Gore wanted to lower the taxes on the middle and lower class tax brackets, thus helping the majority of people and stimulating the economy. (A consumer driven economy is improved when those who could significantly increase their spending on common products, are better able to do so.) Bush advocated and managed to pass an abomination of a tax cut, which will only serve to help his high-donating constituents and Poppy's oil buds.

Gore wanted to build more schools, hire more teachers, and increase accountability without the excessive use of standardized tests. Bush wishes to turn the children "left behind" by the system away with a miniscule voucher that would only fuel the private and religious sector of education.

I need not even make mention of the countless differences between the two on reproductive rights. I could write a book on the damage Bush has done and will continue to do to those freedoms.

The list goes on: missile defense, patients rights, gay-rights, women's rights, death-penalty, faith-based funding, energy, civil rights etc. The disparity between the two is overwhelming.

I can appreciate the strong ideals of those who wish to no longer vote "republicrat". But I ask, is it worth the election of a dunce with an oil complex just to make a point so few will herald? I would say not. Better a moderate Democrat than a Republican.

Printer-friendly version
Tell a friend about this article Tell a friend about this article
Discuss this article
Want to write for Democratic Underground? Click here.

View All Articles