memfree's Journal: Vote Fiscally or Morally?

Last week, I had two interesting conversations that touched on politics (specifically, U.S. partisan stances). In the first, it was posited that party affiliation boils down to people dealing with personal ethics more than for political ideology. The argument was that you couldn't complain about someone's politics any more than you could complain about different types of music. People aren't going to value things the same way. It isn't a question of right and wrong.

With that in the back of my mind, I found myself in the next conversation. My friends (Democrats, no less) -- who grew up in the bible belt of the U.S. -- commented on what it means to be a Republican in the south versus Republicans in the North East Corridor (say, from Boston to D.C.). This lead to me to wondering if people would classify themselves as one of the four possible groups that were demarked while we talked.

1) Fiscal Republicans: My friends feel that North-Easterners tend to base their Republicanism on what stance the government should take on fiscal policies (i.e.: less government is better government). The NE-ers contrast themselves to Tax&Spend Democrats. The fiscal Republican of this loose definition would tend to favor less restriction on Capitalism, and desire as free a market as possible. Give the people the ability to reinvest their earnings, and all will benefit. There is too much waste and bureaucracy now, and Democrats will only make matters worse.

2) The friends then explained that back when they lived in a more ... southerly clime, their almost-exclusively Republican friends were far less interested in the fiscal, but rather equated Republicanism with righteousness. They feel the Moral Republicans tend to take issue with the all-inclusiveness of the Democrats (i.e. gay rights, abortion rights, striking 'under God' from the pledge, etc.). More broadly, Republicans in the Bible Belt may feel our society risks falling like Rome if we allow it to degrade to the point that amorality gains approval from the courts, and "political correctness" does damage when giving pleasant terms to bad behaviors. They tend against the coddling of sinners. They may feel that individuals must be held accountable for their actions, and punished when those actions are damaging.

3) By extension, then, Fiscal Democrats would be those favoring regulations on business (to protect the environment, citizens, etc.), welfare programs of various forms (from the common idea of 'welfare', through job training, Head Start, PBS, etc.), and taxes to cover all those expenses. Fiscal Democrats may feel subsidizing improvements (for the individual or the large corporation) builds a better economy.

4) Moral Democrats would be those that see current legal debates over morals in terms similar to those of the Civil Rights movement. They want the law to clearly rule that different groups have equality (be it blacks and whites, or gays and straights). The moral Democrat may want to make personal choices legal so long as the choices do not cause harm to others. They may feel that prisons cost much to do little, but that treatment, therapy, or training can 'fix' criminals and make them productive members of society.

I've tried to add a bit of good and bad to each group in the fewest words possible, so if you're saying, "yeah! That's what makes those guys suck!", you're probably missing the bigger picture. It is also completely possible that the four categories have nothing to do with how voters see themselves. It is a given that *if* the categories were valid, they would not be restrained to geographic location.

Remember

[sielwolf]

That most of the Southern Republicans were historically Democrats up until the Civil Rights Act was passed. Remember Strom Thurmond and his days on end filibuster? These were the Dixiecrats: anti-establishment, anti-big controlling government (i.e. Bureacracy) but then highly modivated by morals.

LBJ said that the Civil Rights Act would be the biggest sacrifice of the Democratic party because the Southern States would immediately switch to Republicans.

That's how you get this wierd polerization of Republicans: the seemingly poor highly moral Southerners (ok I'm being general) with the hyper-rich amoral industrialists from the NE and West Coast (like the guys putting out the movie smut the Southern Baptists hate aren't Republicans).

On the otherhand I really don't see any difference between your Fiscal and Moral Democrats. The Fiscal part (say Welfare) almost always comes from a desire to spend on some Moral obligation (say the Equality of Life for all Citizens). I really don't know any Democrat who says "just throw more tax money at Government to make it work better."

Re:Remember

[memfree]

My lack of articulating Moral versus Fiscal Democrats is due to my personal failing to understand the difference :-). A better summation from someone else (hint: you?) might be in order.

(like the guys putting out the movie smut the Southern Baptists hate aren't Republicans)

Granting that Arnold Schwarzenegger is a die-hard Republican, I thought that the Soutrhern Baptist groups complained that Hollywood was too Democratic=Liberal=Sinful.

Re:Remember

[sielwolf]

That's the point exactly: it is too liberal yet the guys who run the multi-national media conglomerates (like Michael Eisner or Katzenberg[sic]) are all dollar and cent businessmen. The best example is Sky News mogul Rupert Murdock. He runs Fox television which is kinda smutty for a major network (remember how scandalous Melrose Place supposedly was), and a few movie houses... but then he also runs the ultra-right Fox News and is a well known conservative. This is the current paradox of the GOP.

North West

[Com2Kid]

Democrats tend to be seen as the "smaller, leaner, more efficient" party, while republicans are the "large lumbering hulks" of big business who would remove restrictions from companies actions and let corporations rape the environment, and raise taxes on the little guy while doing it.

On the flip side;

Democrats tend to be seen as the "all encompassing restriction imposing" party that, though they may have good intentions, tends to place way too many rules upon an individuals actions.

A party split is due any time now. . . . I mean on one side we have the "simpler is better, save money and be efficient" democrats, and on the other we have the "Lets all be PC!" democrats, and the latter are just starting to get on people's nerves after awhile.

Then again, with race relations like they are currently in my city, a white male who even taps an African American with an automobile would be accused of being a racist hit and run pig dog.

Mind you, cops who shoot back at suspects are also accused of being "racially motivated" and good sized protests spring up around various parts of town.

Fairly irritating actually.

Though I do sometimes wonder how Seattle managed to get any white cops. The police force must hire solely from the north end of town. . . .

Re:North West

[memfree]

A party split is due any time now

I won't hold my breath waiting for a viable 3rd party. I don't honestly think it can happen with our voting structure. If it makes you feel better, it seems that race relations are pretty crappy everywhere ... but I know people who've been pulled over for "driving while black", and will go see films like "Two Towns of Jasper", so you can tell I'm one of those who expect that the public may not know how much discrimination really happens.

There are Democrats in the U.S. that are seen as efficient??? Wow.

Re:North West

[subgeek]

I won't hold my breath waiting for a viable 3rd party. I don't honestly think it can happen with our voting structure.

and that's what makes our parties suck. that's why there are only supposed to be two solutions to any given problem here. that is why congress spends so much time blaming the other guys. to agree would force them to relinquish identity. and every ideology is supposed to be able to be either republican or democrat.

the two party system is crap. but that's my opinion. both sides irritate me and both sides have some good. neither stands on or for the principles they should.

but what do i know?

There are Democrats in the U.S. that are seen as efficient??? Wow.

that one got me, too. i don't see beaurocracy as efficient. but efficiency isn't always fair.

i think both parties are too tied to big money interests.

Re:North West

[Com2Kid]

that one got me, too. i don't see beaurocracy as efficient. but efficiency isn't always fair.


With the amount of cuts that our democratic governor is currently making. . . .

*sigh*

Tim Iman needs to BURN IN [place name goes here].

(he got some initiatives passed and lied his head off to the voters that they would not necessitate ANY program cuts. As it is everything is getting cut. . . . Some of us more clued in ones knew He was lying, but convincing the rest of the populous. . . .)

Political Agnostic

[Zarf]

That is: I believe that if there is a good politician then they are so far away from me as to have no possible good effect.

For the most part I try to vote for people and not for parties. I've met plenty of dumb bunnies that join a party specifically for winning and not for any position. You can't believe what a politician says during a campagin anyhow.

One of the start ups I worked for did a site for lobbyists. It's still going here [alaskalegis.com] I helped write the "Bill Tracker" software.

My personal opinion is that in the ideal world every citizen would beable to access this kind of information as well as track a politician's voting record so they could see what their representative really stood for. Alas, it takes so much effort to be informed. It's so much easier to just pick a party and vote down the party line. *sigh*

Re:Political Agnostic

[memfree]

I had only ever voted in Alaska for the first chunk of life. There, I was registered non-partisan. In Pennsylvania, I had no choice but to register with one of the big 2 parties, or lose the ability to vote in primaries. That's the way the state has it set up. Grrr.

I couldn't see much of the site in your link because it requires a login. For non-Alaskans, congress.org [congress.org] tracks votes and bills, too. This information doesn't help much in voting choices, as it only gives incumbant vote histories, and not in a very clean way. There's also issues2002.org (ex-issues2000.org which is still in SERIOUS need of updates, and faster response times), which includes SenateMatch [issues2002.org] and other tools to find candidates who vote/think in keeping with views similar to your own. Sample record for CA challenger, Tom Campbell [issues2002.org]

Watch out on how that site determines candidate opinions, though. I remember noticing that they'd labeled folks whose only abortion-related vote was one making it illegal to perform partial birth abortions in the thrid trimester. Since that one bit was all they had, they listed the guy as if it meant he was an abosulte pro-lifer.