If you think the two parties are in reality two wings of the same party, this thread is for you!

[More Than A Feeling]

If you hold the above belief, I'd like to hear your case developed more fully than the soundbite chunks that get tossed about too often here. In particular, I'd like to know how you account for the fact that within the Democratic party at least, there is the presence of progressive politicians such as the House Progressive Caucus, and the liberal wing of the senate, whose most prominent avatars are Boxer, Kennedy, and Feingold. Are they also complicit in this single party scheme? If so, how do you know that?

Any sources that have helped you come to the conclusion stated in the title of this thread would be most helpful as well.

Thanks for taking the time to answer this question, and feel free to correct me if I have erected a strawman. I promise not to be offended, but to listen fully to your explanation.

[skipos]

1. If it wasn't for our Dem majority, I wouldn't be watching Waxman on TV right now

tearing shit up.
Sorry, this doesn't really address your question... I was just thinking that.

[More Than A Feeling]

2. Well, thanks for the kick!

I know of at least one person who has stated this, and I asked them. They haven't gotten back to me yet, but then I figured that there are probably more people who feel the same way, and I want to hear from all of them. Hence a whole thread devoted to the question.

[skipos]

3. Maybe Nader will drop by! nt

[bottomofthehill]

8. Maybe he will drop dead

[ktlyon]

4. In some ways yes Republics and Democrats are similar

but they are also different. Both must play the same game of American politics. Like football teams they are the same in that they play by the same rules on similar fields. Both must raise money to support their campaigns and they must try to get support from the American people. The Republics have always had a large turnout from wealthy people that expect something, Dems the same. If the Dems don't play the game and get big money from liberal business and community leaders they will not win the White House. Until Bill Clinton put together the DLC to raise money the Dems had to little hope of winning the White House. This is why some dems are called Republican light. Fundamentally the two parties stand for different things and have different supporters. So don't be confused because they both wear helmets and pads, play on the same field and work in the same buildings, we are not them and our view of the world is from the left and theirs comes from the right. We defend different goals but winning is still the objective. It is ideas and philosophy that distinguish the two parties.

[mainegreen]

5. I think this is closer to the truth:

[wyldwolf]

6. I would expect to see this thread at Nader Underground

..anyone who believes the premise you lay out (not saying you do) is either WAAAAY to the left or WAAAAAY to the right.

soundbite chunks that get tossed about too often here is really all they have.

[liberal renegade]

7. Somedays it's hard

to tell them apart... Maybe if they'd start kicking ass and taking names, it'd be a little easier to indentify one from the other..

[LeftishBrit]

9. I don't think they are two wings of the same party...

though I do agree with MaineGreen's diagram. But I think MOST Republicans (not all) seem to be so ultra-right-wing that there is a big difference.

I don't think the Democratic party overall is left-wing, however. Just not far-right.

I think in most parties anywhere there is a lot of difference within as well as between parties. E.g. SOME of our Labour MPs are worse than SOME Conservatives (especially pre-Thatcher Conservatives), but overall Labour is well to the left of the Conservatives. But one might not think so, because currently the party is run from its FAR right. Many of us think that Blair and Tory leader Cameron are clones. But that doesn't make the parties identical as a whole.