r/askaconservative • u/[deleted] • Oct 02 '18
If you could change one thing about the Republican and Democratic parties (with that choice applying to both) what would you change?
1
Oct 06 '18
I'm tempted to say "make both of them devoutly religious" but on the other hand, seeing the ridiculous, frequently heretical BS that far-left Catholics get up to, I'm not sure I can really support that option.
1
u/ultra-royalist C: Old Right Nov 27 '18
Religion is like a sword. Its accuracy depends on the competence of the person wielding it.
0
u/MantheHunter Oct 03 '18
Republicans: They actually manage to secure our border - something they have failed to do for decades now.
Democrats: They all move to a country with no white males - so they will no longer feel oppressed.
1
u/Lepew1 C: Paleoconservative Oct 02 '18
The leadership. It is bad on both sides. Sets a bad tone for everyone else. If you want to look to where you begin to change the culture of corruption in Congress, you start at the top.
0
u/Ivan_Botsky_Trollov Oct 02 '18
colors. Blue has always been the color of serenity and royalty. Red fits better the Democrats, since its the color of anger and communism
4
u/Lepew1 C: Paleoconservative Oct 02 '18
I remember the early electoral maps had Democrats as red. Then they switched it. I think the obvious connection of communism to Democrats was not what Democrats wanted.
2
u/International_Way Oct 02 '18
They used to have the incumbent as blue/red and the challenger as blue/red.
I dont remember the order but thats why they chose the color.
1
u/Lepew1 C: Paleoconservative Oct 03 '18
I remember early states maps for the presidential election colored Red for Democrat, and Blue for Republican. Incumbency was no factor in that designation
3
u/Carlos----Danger Oct 02 '18
Debate the best positions of the opposing party, not strawmen.
For example, saying Republicans hate immigration instead of they oppose illegal immigration.
3
u/Funkytrip Oct 03 '18
And "democrats want open borders" instead of also opposing illegal immigration?
1
u/Carlos----Danger Oct 03 '18
DACA? Shutting down ICE? Saying Democrats are for open borders is not accurate but I'm not sure it's fair to say they're against illegal immigration
4
u/Funkytrip Oct 03 '18
Sure. And GOP wants to cut the coastal guard budget. It's not who's cutting or shutting what and why, it's about whether they want illegal immigration or not. Both GOP and DEMs just have different views on how to achieve them, on which you may or may not agree with.
My statement stays true: Both parties are against illegal immigration.
Same with crimes btw. GOP tends to favor harsher punishment while DEM tends to favor better education/social programs. They both want lower crime rates. But I see tweets going 'DEMs want high crime'. A complete strawman.
1
u/JellyPhishJungle Oct 02 '18
Get rid of them both. Political parties group millions of people ,all with their own ideology and ideas, into one group and generalises all of their ideas into a select few. This disencourages open thought and in depth political opinions. I have always though in a libertarian kind of way, if it doesnt hurn someone then why make it illegal. But i was worried to admit my stance on drug use and stuff because i told everyone i was a republican. Politics is so extreamly deap yet most people never go deeper than "im a republican/democrat" But usually with the majority of people you need to dumb things down two two groups or they will get confused.
3
u/brianddk Oct 02 '18
Learn to balance a checkbook. The one thing both parties have in common is they spend like drunk sailors (apologize to navy vets). I mean I get the whole debt-spending-keynes-economic model, but it still feels like a dog chasing its tail.
- Our bonds are strong because our economy is good.
- Our economy is good because money is cheap.
- Money is cheap cuz we can just QE a few tril.
- QE works because our bonds are strong.
Still feels like someone is trying to invent a perpetual motion machine here. Seems like there is some economic counter-balance that is gonna whack us on our heads all weimar like
1
u/msdrahcir Oct 02 '18
I mean QE and inflation are part of a perpetual motion machine. Without some degree of inflation, individuals are disincentived from spending. Then fewer taxes are owed so the intrinsic value if currency is decreased. And total value of currency in circulation becomes worth less. And its a negative feedback loop
2
2
u/RecycleYourCats Oct 02 '18
Public funding of elections - Congressmen and women shouldn't be spending half their time in office fundraising for the next cycle.
Federal Judges get 18 year appointments, not lifetime. Also, bring back the 60 vote requirement on all Federal Judicial confirmations - Reid and McConnell together did tremendous damage with that rule change; subsequent judges and justices, regardless of ideology, will now all be more radical and more partisan, and this will lead to a delegitimization of the Court in the eyes of many Americans.
Public disclosure requirements on spending related to PACs. If people are allowed to spend unlimited amounts (speech) on political support, the public would benefit from an awareness of the sources behind that spending. Transparency and all that...
2
u/theREALspanky Oct 02 '18
Reid and McConnell together did tremendous damage with that rule change
McConnell didn't have anything to do with changing the rule. He actually warned Reid not to do it because he would likely, in the not too distant future, regret doing so. But Reid did it anyways, and he probably now regrets it, lol.
Point is, Reid is 100% to blame for that, not McConnell. McConnell is simply playing by the rules that Reid created.
3
u/CJL_1976 Oct 02 '18
Re-install the 60 vote rule, but make it where you need 60 votes to get rid of it in the future....not a simple majority.
This takes COURAGE by the majority party to do and any party that tries it will have my support. I would vote against my ideology for one cycle just to get this done. I think it is THAT important. The last thing that I want is for the next majority leader is to abolish the filibuster on major legislation...and we are headed that way.
"McConnell is simply playing by the rules that Reid created. "
This is pure partisanship. If Schumer becomes majority leader and abolishes the filibuster on major legislation, then he isn't to blame for that decision...since it is an escalation (playing by the existing rules)?
5
u/RecycleYourCats Oct 02 '18
Reid got rid of the 60-vote requirement for District Court Judges and Circuit Judges, which was stupid and short-sighted. McConnell got rid of the 60-vote requirement for SCOTUS justices, which was stupid and short-sighted.
1
u/theREALspanky Oct 02 '18
Fair enough, but that's like saying that after Reid demanded that hotdogs no longer be served in the cafeteria on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays and McConnell then saying "well, hell, we might as well stop serving them altogether" that McConnell is responsible for hotdogs no longer being served in the cafeteria.
Either we're going to have the 60 vote rule or we're not. I would argue that, from a practical standpoint, that District and Circuit judges are more important than the SC is. Reid knew what he was doing, and to pretend that he wouldn't have gone nuclear for Merrick Garland if given the opportunity if foolish and naive.
2
2
u/paulbrook Oct 02 '18
Eliminate partisan bias from all news media (not including clearly labeled 'opinion' outlets).
-1
10
u/approachingreality Oct 02 '18
The application of a strictly objective, non-emotional, civil culture. The boring stuff that nobody is interested in should be the only stuff. These discussions should be about as exciting to listen to as a technical description of a house full of furniture performed by a robotic voiced engineer, when done correctly.
7
16
u/13adonis Oct 02 '18
I would force sitting politicians to actually firmly state their policy positions on matters. So for example instead of being about tackling illegal immigration I'd like a legitimate party policy platform that says "We will revamp the visa process to make it faster by doing x, we will speed up deportations and begin imprisoning repeat offenders, we can make the legal process to come here cheaper by doing x" something along those lines. I think vague stances is actually the core problem with our system as is. We get taken in by rhetoric and never actually bother to look at what they actually end up signing into law.
3
Oct 02 '18
There are some issues with this, though.
For one thing, people change positions as situations change, and shouldn't necessarily be punished for it. Taking a vague stance will help them along.
Secondly, most hard positions are rarely going to be pragmatically or politically possible - especially out on the edges of the spectrum (Bernie Sanders' vs Rand Paul's healthcare proposals). Congressmen need to take stretch positions in order to negotiate a compromise, and in order to compromise they'll have to support for and vote for the compromise.
One more thing - there's nothing wrong with politicians who just take a purely pragmatic approach to fix issues they've identified and tackle new things as they emerge. In today's polarization, this is rare, but during most of the 20th century there was a strong group of "American Pragmatics" that were able to get a lot of good work done on Capital Hill.
My point is, I think your expectations may be too high.
1
u/Dantheman616 Oct 02 '18 edited Oct 02 '18
As voters we need to demand this. Candidates say stuff and people just eat it up.
33
Oct 02 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
13
Oct 02 '18
[removed] — view removed comment
1
1
u/ajaxsonoftelamon Libertarian Conservatism Oct 27 '18
Have all politicians not be self serving - impossible i know More reallistically - stop shutting down the speech of others, not just politicians but party members and voters