What Party do I belong to?

[Anonymous]

Let me begin by saying I am a registered Democrat.

So, what party do I really belong to? I am socially liberal, but fiscally conservative. I don't ever seem to like either of the politicians they give me to choose from. I actually don't like that really, I only get to choose from 2. I know there are others, but I was chastised for choosing the other once and taking a vote away from the 2 big wigs. It reminds me of the giant corporations taking over the smaller companies. You get two choices. Really those two choices are not all that different from one another when you get down to it. So, which side do I belong on? What guidelines should I use to help me decide when it comes time to vote?

[Anonymous]

I am socially liberal, but fiscally conservative.

I don't understand how this is incompatible with the Democratic party. "Fiscally conservative" is basically a branding tool, like "deficit hawk". It's meaningless--or rather it describes everyone, on either side of the aisle who has any credibility.

And seriously, there may be no difference between two rural Congresspersons, but the idea that there's "no difference" between, say, an Obama Administration and a theoretical McCain (or Palin) Administration is just lame pseudo-centrist posturing.

If you don't understand the differences between the parties, you need to educate yourself on the issues.

[Anonymous]

Without being as harsh as the previous poster, I agree that there is a world of difference between the two parties, at least in terms of policy. Both parties are full of ambitious politicians who listen to their own "special interests" and have to spend more time raising money than they'd like. But in terms of policy, they are very, very different.

[Anonymous]

You don't have a party. There is no fiscally conservative party out there today. Find me a party that cut more than 5% of the total U.S. budget in the postwar period.

OK, I'll answer my own question. The last time it happened was in 1954. Total outlays decreased by 6.9% A few years later the spending picked up again. In 1965 they managed to hold spending flat for one year. But just flat. This is why I think it is ridiculous to believe that anyone is going to cut spending.

As for deficits, I will say that historically Democrats have closed more budget deficits and Republicans have run more. But I think that much of that was through increased taxes, either a change in the rate or a change in total receipts due to economic growth.

[Anonymous]

Independent?

[Anonymous]

Since your party designation does not restrict how you vote in the general election, register with whichever party has the primary that you want to affect. For me, that makes me a Democrat, since I live in DC and want to have a voice in who gets to be Mayor and who represents my Ward. But years ago, in one election I felt strongly about helping a Statehood Councilmember withstand a primary challenge and switched over.

If I lived in a state with a viable Republican party, I think I would register GOP so I could help move it away from the tea party fringe.

I admit that this might subvert the idea that people who believe in the party's principles should choose the party's candidate, but I am not sure the parties really have principles, and I am more wedded to the principle that each of us serves democracy best if we use our vote as effectively as possible.

[Anonymous]

I get where the OP is coming from. I'm a liberal, and agree with MOST of the left's policies, but found myself hating Nancy Pelosi, to where I couldn't stand listening to her. Really, what are the blue dog democrats? Clinton, who governed as a centrist, and at times termed a "watered down Republican", was described as a "New Democrat". Some of his policies, such as welfare reform and NAFTA, were most definitely of a centrist philosophy.

One of the problems with politics, especially since Reagan, and this is my point of view, is that you're either a LIBERAL or CONSERVATIVE, with no room for expression. The far right alienated themselves from the middle of the road Republicans - and it's sad, very sad. Most Americans describe themselves as somewhere in the middle. We need MORE of the middle of the road philosophies, e.g., the Blue Dog Democrats.

Our country is confused and broken because of exactly what the PP's said - you're either or, there isn't an in between.

[Anonymous]

I dislike the whole concept of left/right, as if the world were one-dimensional. My favorite counter-example is the Catholic position on life. By being consistently pro-life they fall on the right concerning birth-control and abortion, and on the left on the death penalty.

Note: by calling them consistent I am not endorsing their positions, but saying that the left/right terminology distorts our discussions. Once you allow yourself to self-identify as "liberal" (as I do) or as "conservative" you tend to paint yourself into a position on issues before you really look at them objectively.

BTW, I fear that labeling yourself "middle of the road" may also put you in a strait jacket, albeit a different one.

[Anonymous]

I'd let your social values dictate which party you feel more comfortable in. On the fiscal side of things, no party has been fiscally conservative for quite awhile. Think of it instead as trying to get back to being fiscally responsible. You need to figure out what role government should play in our lives and then figure out how we can do that in a fiscally prudent way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I get where the OP is coming from. I'm a liberal, and agree with MOST of the left's policies, but found myself hating Nancy Pelosi, to where I couldn't stand listening to her. Really, what are the blue dog democrats? Clinton, who governed as a centrist, and at times termed a "watered down Republican", was described as a "New Democrat". Some of his policies, such as welfare reform and NAFTA, were most definitely of a centrist philosophy.

Got a reason for that, or was it just "American Idol" -style antipathy? I'm genuinely curious.

As far as "blue dog Democrats", that seems to be a matter of staking oneself out a position in the arbitrary middle, regardless of the arguments. Consider the "centrists" who held out for a smaller fiscal stimulus bill:

There were folks (generally) on the left who argued that a Keynesian stimulus of $1T+ dollars would be effective in boosting the economy out of it's torpor. There were folks on the right (generally) who argued that Keynesian stimulus doesn't work, so we shouldn't do it. Those are two intellectually coherent positions, and you can have a debate on that.

Meanwhile, there were a small group of craven souls who grandstand about "fiscal responsibility" and their "centrist" credentials who "split the baby," saying, "Let's do a stimulus, but let's cut it by 20% so it's effects are minimized." Now, if these assholes don't believe in a stimulus bill, why the Hell would they vote to throw money down the toilet? If they do believe in stimulus, gutting it makes no sense whatsoever. Again, by paring it down, you're just wasting money.

We see this again, and again and again by these self-proclaimed "moderates". And meanwhile, folks who don't pay much attention to politics or policy raise them to the level of heroes because "they're right in the middle, just like me!" Bottom line is, they play the middle, regardless of whether it's good policy because that's how they can get the spotlight.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:BTW, I fear that labeling yourself "middle of the road" may also put you in a strait jacket, albeit a different one.

Excellent point. You end up with centrism for centrism's sake. Another abortion example: some folks believe an embryo is a human being, from fertilization to birth to death. Other's believe that it's not that simple, and that life begins where some form of consciousness is attained, and so early-term abortion is permissible--even late-term abortion if the mother's life is at risk.

Then you've got the centrists, who triangulate between these two philosophical positions, and argue that while, yes, an abortion is killing a child, we should let pregnant women do it anyway, but make it as hard as possible to get one. And we applaud them for their ability to compromise.

[Anonymous]

OP, I think it depends on what your personal priorities are. Sure, the Republicans sometimes offer some appealling stuff. But then I hear somebody running their mouth about being against gay rights, or anti choice, or anti immigrant, or anti muslim.... and my blood just boils. I CANNOT in good conscience vote Republican, as much as my other values and desires might occassionally tempt me to. I have posted on here before - if the Reps would just get the hell out of marital and reproductive law, they'd have a shot at me.

[Anonymous]

I am with you OP - although a registered Republican I don't vote 'party lines'. I find myself in the middle with most of the quiet majority...or what I used to think was a quiet majority - not so sure anymore. I try to look at the individual to see who best reflects my position.

[Anonymous]

I could have authored this post myself! I like to tell people I'm a social safety net libertarian. Ha.

This year I made the conscious decision not to vote in most national races. I hated all my options and couldn't in good conscience push the button for any of them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I could have authored this post myself! I like to tell people I'm a social safety net libertarian. Ha.

This year I made the conscious decision not to vote in most national races. I hated all my options and couldn't in good conscience push the button for any of them.

Uhh . . . there is only one national race, and it was 2 years ago.