Why do we HAVE to have differing political parties?

There are those out there who are much more well versed in this subject but as I recall, the FF’s, at least some of them, did not want parties because of the way it factionalized the body politic. Smart guys it would appear.
They say that there are basic philosophic differences but I have always viewed them as two factions of the same party, kind of the yin/yang thing. Their main purpose now seems to be to keep more groups from joining the discussion. Either an Us or no-one attitude.

It seems pointless now, because the current Republican party is ensuring that government cannot function. But it hasn’t always been that way. It used to be possible for the two groups, with opposing ideas, to be able to function in concert to find a best solution for all citizens, including those with extreme views on either side.

That’s kind of like asking why we have different ideologies. But, one doesn’t have to automatically be against an issue due to representation. Some just choose to for various reasons.

I’m a republican and I agree with a few points from the left. Don’t make assumptions about everyone, it’s immature and unintelligent.

What are the ideological differences between the two? I know that the Republicans are supposedly more “conservative.” What exactly does that mean? Conservative in what way?

If you don’t know the views and opposing views of each party, I really hope that you don’t vote. How would you know who to vote for?

Heavens, @Dutchess_III – that is a huge question in and of itself. And you’d have to start by defining whether you are talking about differences between the parties, or differences between the voters. And whether you mean the official stances of the parties, or how they actually govern. And whether you mean the historical ideologies of the parties, or what they have become only very recently. I can pretty much guarantee that when you use the word “Republican”, you hold in your mind a completely different thing than, say, @cheebdragon does. First, define what you are asking, then perhaps make it a different question.

Imagine there’s no heaven…

Our democratic process in action (2013 version)

M: Ah, Is this the right room for an argument?
A: I told you once.
M: No you haven’t.
A: Yes I have.
M: When?
A: Just now.
M: No you didn’t.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn’t
A: I did!
M: You didn’t!
A: I’m telling you I did!
M: You did not!!
A: Oh, I’m sorry, just one moment. Is this a five minute argument or the full half hour?
M: Oh, just the five minutes.
A: Ah, thank you. Anyway, I did.
M: You most certainly did not.
A: Look, let’s get this thing clear; I quite definitely told you.
M: No you did not.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn’t.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn’t.
A: Yes I did.
M: No you didn’t.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn’t.
A: Did.
M: Oh look, this isn’t an argument.
A: Yes it is.
M: No it isn’t. It’s just contradiction.
A: No it isn’t.
M: It is!
A: It is not.
M: Look, you just contradicted me.
A: I did not.
M: Oh you did!!
A: No, no, no.
M: You did just then.
A: Nonsense!
M: Oh, this is futile!
A: No it isn’t.
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn’t; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn’t just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can’t. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn’t.
M: Yes it is! It’s not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that’s not just saying ‘No it isn’t.’
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn’t!

Thanks to Monty Python for making this happen.

Hell, I don’t know exactly what I’m asking, @glacial. That’s why I threw this question out. For example, the gun control issue. I keep reading, from reliable sources like MSN, The Huff Post, etc. that 90% of Americans are for gun reform. Well, that should just settle it IMO. But that number doesn’t seem to affect certain Republicans at all. That’s just seems screwed up to me.

@Dutchess_III If you have time, please take the time to read This lecture by Ralph Waldo Emerson given in 1841. It is as timely today as it was 172 years ago.
Although called “The Conservative” it actually addresses both the conservative and the progressive sides of the equasion.
I would go so far as to suggest that each of us could benefit from the insight presented by Mr. Emerson.

@Dutchess_III Yes, and that’s exactly what I’m talking about with respect to government not being able to function right now.

At least they voted not to filibuster the debate on gun control. That is the most positive thing I’ve seen coming out of the Republican party in a very long time.

Huffington post?...seriously?.

I predict that there will be 1500 responses to the question. Like the example of Monty Python, there will be no resolution.

If everyone agreed with everyone else, we would all be stupid.

@Tropical_Willie Yes, but it reminded me of how funny they were and I just Youtubed the sketch.

I have a hard time understanding politics…so normally, I’d just say something lame, like, it’s human nature to argue and shit. Well perhaps it is, but I like to think some politics are better than that. There are different ideals out there, different methods to handle things, different ways to look at them, and we’re granted a chance to participate.

I’m just glad I live in a place where we have the choice to follow certain ideals and whatnot, or talk about what we like or don’t like without getting arrested. Having to debate, to this fucking day, about gay marriage for example, utterly frightens me, but it’s a better step ahead than other mentalities in other places where you just about get burned at the stake for such things.

Or perhaps we have no choice at all, and are controlled by Templars or something, I denno.

Wow. That was long! It’s kind of comparing the reformers to the young, and conservatives with the old. Young wants change, old wants things to stay the same. I understood that already, but that helped clarify. Some things should change, and some things shouldn’t so it’s good to have the opposing points.
However, as I said, it seems that some politicians might believe in changing things, but since they’re a Republican they’ll vote against it anyway. That’s just defeating, IMO.

As a liberal Republican, I don’t agree with everything either party offers. I feel there are certain members of each who are obstructionists as well.

I truly believe we actually all want mostly the same things, which is for America to be strong and her people to be free and equal to pursue their individual goals. There are many paths to the truth, but unfortunately, no one in Washington or on fluther is able to clearly see a path that all can take without feeling infringed upon. I say potato, you say patato, but they are the same thing.

Like @Symbeline says, SSM is a polarizing argument because most Christian Conservatives will choose to believe their God’s dictates that it’s wrong, over the more human approach of lie and let live. Who is to say that one is right and one is wrong? I personally am a live and let live kind of person, and God says we are not to judge each other, so for me, it’s between the couple and their Deity, but when it comes to enacting a law for the entire country, most conservatives will never vote for it. It’s tricky and sad.

Nice, @KNOWITALL. When I was younger I would have aligned myself more with the Republican/conservatives. Then that morphed into “Independent.” Now, I’d call myself a conservative Democrat, if that even makes sense.

I’m not really referring to which side the citizens align themselves with, because that can be so fluid, but to what the politicians who have the voting power are thinking. Are they even allowed to change sides if they start thinking that their party has gone wonky?

I wonder if it would even be possible to have just one political party, like the American Political Party (there an APP for that?:) They just make decisions based on what seems to be right. You would still have arguments and debates about the best course of action, because that’s human nature, but there wouldn’t be the pressure to come down on one side or the other just because of the tag you choose. Back to the gun reform thing. If 90% of Americans are FOR it then that means a whole bunch of Republican Americans are for it, too. So, it’s a done deal.

@Dutchess_III “Are they even allowed to change sides if they start thinking that their party has gone wonky?”

They are “allowed” to vote any way they choose. They have to balance their own moral compass against their fear of not being re-elected and their fear of consequences from within their party. Right now, Republicans who vote with the party line solely out of fear of repercussions from their own party are endangering their chances of being re-elected (see your statistic re. public support for gun control). It’s an interesting dynamic, if not a happy one.

Actually, it reminds me a little of the politician in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, quaking in his boots because because he was caught between the will of the Taylor machine and all those kids who have parents who vote. If only he’d had some backbone, and could act according to his conscience.

@Dutchess_III Like I said the other day, I truly believe as old Abe did, that special interests will always trump the needs of the American people, government and it’s programs are broken, and we need to start all over. I’m not sure of the solution, but we know what doesn’t work, which is both of the parties in office who lie repeatedly to get elected, then sell out as soon as they get sworn in.

Yes, Obama did the same, he voted to renew the Bush tax cuts, didn’t close Gitmo, put troops in Afghanistan. I’m not bashing him because most of our elected officials do the same thing, president after president, both parties are undermined.

When the Constitution was written, the idea of political parties was not in it. It was felt at the time that the political process could get by without parties.

But very early on, a rift happened. Alexander Hamilton (and to a lesser extent John Adams) felt very strongly that we should have a central bank, and incur a national debt so we could develop credit. They felt that the central bank should incur the debt of the states, and in turn borrow from foreign governments to centralize government and stimulate the economy. This group was known as the “Federalists”. George Washington was a Federalist sympathizer although he never really came out as a Federalist.

This Federalist idea was strongly and bitterly opposed by Thomas Jefferson and the Southern coalition. By the time George Washington had finished his two terms in office, This opposition coalesced into a party, called the Democratic-Republicans.

When John Adams ran for President he was a Federalist, and Jefferson ran against him as a Dem-Rep. Adams won, and Jefferson became VEEP per the constitution at the time.

The final straw happened during Adams’ presidency when he signed the Alien and Sedition Acts, which allowed the government to jail people who were critical of the government. Jefferson bitterly opposed the acts (which would certainly be declared unconstitutional today) and in 1800 won the presidency in large part on the platform of repealing the acts. (Ironically, Jeffereson actually used the Sedition Act to jail a few opponents of him).

So the multiple party system was arguably an inevitable consequence of how democracy is organized. In an English-style parlamentary (sp?) system you can have multiple parties forming coalitions. In our constitutional republic style, the two party system was probably inevitable based upon the geography of the rural South and the urban North.

Wow. Thanks bear. Yes…so much of it seems to go back to the North v South thing.

Next up is a serious medical question for you regarding wet ears.

Who are these republicans voting against something they believe in just because of their political party? I’d love to know….

Come on down to the Carolina’s. The Tea Party ( most of the Republicans ) members in my state are “ANTI” anything from the Democratic side of the congressional chambers. They are still trying to prove that the POTUS is a Muslim from Nigeria. The feeling from most of the Tea Party I’ve talked to is that we should be back in the 50’s, the 1850’s. The Republicans at the state level have tried to seceded from the USA and are trying to get a state religion approved (Southern Baptist), counter to the USA Constitution.

Yes, opposed cliches are self-defeating.

That’s the problem when things are so narrowly defined. You get locked into a specific set a criteria.

That said, it’s human nature. We are social animals, we need to belong to ‘groups’ because that is the way we define ourselves as individuals. Ironic, no?

You can say that republicans are anti anything from the left all you want, doesn’t make it true if you have no evidence or examples. Otherwise, the same could be said about democrats being anti anything republican.

Republicans and Democrats have many shared goals and ideals. This is especially true if you disregard the extremists on the left and the extremists on the right. Much debate is rooted in the difficulties of prioritizing these shared goals when one of them begins to get in the way of another. A sunday morning talk show panelist once summed up the differences between liberals and conservatives by saying that when liberty and equality come in conflict with each other, liberals tend to favor equality while conservatives tend to favor liberty. It’s not that either side is against equality or liberty. It’s just that the complexities of life demand that we make choices about priorities.

@cheebdragon Here you go.

That graph speaks a thousand words. Thanks @glacial. …but the thought crossed my mind that that graph would be really accurate if they displayed penises instead of lines.

How was that supposed to show that republicans are voting against things they believe in just to go against democrats?

This link lists the filibusters and what they were used for. It’s pretty sad that things like civil rights and ending discrimination in the work place were so strongly opposed by some, Democrats included.

@cheebdragon ”If everyone agreed with everyone else, we would all be stupid.” Who’d be left to know it? LOL

@Dutchess_III Oh dear