D'artagnan wrote:Lash wrote:Darlin--
You think Republicans have changed for the worse... I think they've changed for the better, and I can see the dialogue that has plummeted among Dem politcians. Your attempt to use Coulter, Limbaugh, Drudge, O'reily as Republican leaders is in evidence.
I have no idea how old you are, Lash, but the Republican party used to have a wide array of opinions. Everyone from liberal northeastern Republicans to the Goldwater end of the spectrum. They were an interesting party for that reason.
Now they're doctrinaire. You think this is a change for the better?
As opposed to the Democratic Party which resides beneath this enormous, billowing tent?
Was the Democratic party so much more interesting and beneficent when it contained Southern Dixiecrats like Strom Thurmond?
With the exception of a few Yankee Liberal Republicans like Chaffee and Snow, the Republican Party has consolidated around a specific ideology.
That a Liberal finds this problematic, is (frankly) of little import.
The Democratic Party, on the other hand, has quite a few more heretics than can be seen in the Republican Party.
Again, a Liberal might offer this as testimony to the inclusiveness of the Democrats, but, in reality, those Democrats who lean to the right do so because it is the only way they will get elected in a Red State, and they are reviled by the Leftist rank and file.
Witness Joe Lieberman.
How many Democrats cite Joe as an example of the breadth of Democratic thinking? How many consider him a wolf in sheep's clothing?
Political polarization is a desired outcome of political purists.
Whether or not this is a positive trend will depend upon one's personal opinions.
In my mind, it is preferable to have two parties that stand for clearly different policies than two parties which each encompass all ends of the spectrum. The former encourages public debate; the latter encourages apathy.
