Responding to the original question, I'd say it's close because there really isn't that much difference.
Yes, the differences are striking when you highlight them and state them as the opposing parties want them stated. But the similarities far outweigh the differences. Which is why Palin can pursue socialist policies in Alaska and accuse Obama of more socialist leanings without blushing. Or maybe she does blush, but her makeup technician has it under control. And while the Republicans did invade Iraq causing untold suffering, the Democrats were pursuing a regime change policy in the Clinton years through blockade and no-fly enforcement which also caused untold suffering, if I remember what Amy Goodman's guests were saying way back then. As for spying on American citizens, well, J Edgar Hoover served as FBI director under 6 presidents, 4 democrats and 2 republicans. But that makes it sound too close, it was 11 years under republicans and 26 years under democrats. That wasn't all so long ago. Adding in the 11 years that Hoover served as the BI director before the FBI was established (under FDR), the presidents go to 4 and 4, while the democrats still have the edge in years 28 to 19. The funny thing I discovered was that Hoover was the technocrat president: "Hoover deeply believed in the Efficiency Movement<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficiency_Movement>(a major component of the Progressive Era <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Era>), arguing that a technical solution existed for every social and economic problem." But that didn't save him when the bottom fell out of the economy. Which leads to why the Republicrats and the Democans are so similar -- there haven't been many "new" ideas in the last century, and they've converged on the consensus view of the "old" issues: slavery = bad, universal suffrage = good, socialism = in moderation, military imperialism = bad, racial segregation = bad, politcal corruption = bad, and so on. So while Glen may worry about being branded, tarred and feathered for his skepticism of universal healthcare, he will not argue that someone should thrown out of the hospital to die on the sidewalk for lack of health insurance. He just wants the bill to get paid without making a political issue or institution or scandal out of it. We don't believe in letting people die for lack of health care, but we're unclear how to make it so. And I don' t think that either party has any advantage on stupidity or ignorance, but it wouldn't change anything if one did: stupid, ignorant people can make brilliant decisions; smart, educated people can make horrible decisions. (The google ads on this thread are impressive, looks like Ron Paul wants to go bimetallic.) -- rec --
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
