Let’s get ready to rumble! In this corner we have the “Grand Ol’ Party”, the people who brought you Abraham Lincoln and Ronald Reagan. The party responsible for preserving the Union and shifting all the money and power to the top of it. Representing them is the richest man to ever run for president and the first Mormon to ever make it to this stage of the election, Mitt Romney. In the opposite corner we have the Democrats. The people who brought you FDR and and JFK. Yes, they are the more hip party, hence the 3 letter acronyms for their POTUSes (for some reason it feels like that the plural should be “POTI”). Representing them is the first, the one, and the only, foreign-born-socialist-muslim-sleeper-cell incumbent president Mr. Barack Hussein Obama.
What’s more important than the combatants in this duel, is their respective philosophical corner men, represented by Darwin and Jesus. That’s right, Charles Darwin, the scientist who authored the theory of evolution and Jesus the Christ of Nazareth, the Jewish Rabbi who Christians believe is the Son of God and whose death freed mankind from their sins. Their philosophies, on science and religion respectively, have been transposed to fit any and every ethical and financial situation in daily American life, but you’d be surprised at which party leans more towards one of these timeless icons over the other! Republicans seem to believe in Jesus and practice “Economic Darwinism” while Democrats believe in Darwin and a “What Would Jesus Do” economic system.
It’s been over 40 years since Jerry Fallwell “…Made God a Republican and Baptized the American Right” as Michael Sean Winters so aptly titled his book on the subject. Since then the Republicans have claimed to be God’s lobbyist in the halls of congress, but if we go issue by issue on what they believe, they stand more firmly with, what an economist would call “economic Darwinism”, than anything a man who fed thousands with just 2 fishes and 5 loaves. Let’s go issue by issue.
Republicans believe the poor need to get up off their asses and rise out of poverty through their own hard work. I don’t think Democrats would disagree with that position, but they also seem to try to understand an individuals extenuating circumstances. At the very least they take a “don’t ask, don’t tell” approach to helping the poor, much in the same thing Jesus did. He didn’t ask why you were poor or sick, and you didn’t have to tell him, he just fed and healed you. Conservatives blatantly want the country to be more “Christ like”, yet they don’t want the government to follow the verses in the New Testament that admonish us to feed the poor, and only quote the scriptures where Jesus talks about homosexuality and abortion (I’ll give you a few moments to hunt those down).
Let’s talk about universal health care. The conservatives run the party that literally cheered the hypothetical question of an uninsured man dying, from a disease or injury that he did not have the foresight to prepare for, in a Republican debate. They seem to be okay with people not being cured from injuries and sicknesses that modern medicine has allowed us to alleviate. As much as I understand the need to champion wise decision making, how can you in one breath scream about how the nations laws should closely match how the bible feels about homosexuality, and literally advocate against healing the sick? It is the height of Darwinistic “natural selection” to leave fellow humans alone to die in misery from curable or preventable sickness and disease.
Darwinism is all about natural selection. The idea that over time, the weak and ineffective species (and when applied to society and economics replace “species” with “norms” and “business”) will die out and make room for the better. Conservatives take that philosophy to heart when discussing the economy. Mitt Romney had no qualms with letting the auto-workers suffer through a world changing flood of layoffs. It is evidently what the market called for, and who are we to stand in the way of economic evolution? You would think that at some point the conservative penchant towards economic Darwinism and it’s rampant jingoism and xenophobia would collide to make this country better. As much as they see the world as “us” vs “them” internationally, why don’t they make all of our countries citizens stronger both economically and physically? The disconnect is amazing.
Now, while the conservatives believe that natural selection is a true phenomena when it comes to economics, they fight it tooth and nail when it comes to what should be taught to our children. Instead of making observation about the harsh reality of the world (Darwinism in a nutshell) they want us to have faith and believe in something we have no physical evidence of. Trust me, I understand some of the push back against scientific findings. Scientists have a knack of stating theory as fact, which can be incredibly annoying. But that’s only because they understand that every statement of fact is open to being challenged and investigated. You don’t believe the sky is blue? Prove it isn’t! Religious people, on the other hand, brag about their lack of evidence as proof of their righteousness, a position that is much more confusing.
Saying Liberals believe in Darwin and “What Would Jesus Do” Economics doesn’t mean that most liberals in the political arena aren’t Christians. I’m positive that the majority of them would identify themselves as Christians, and maybe close to half of them really mean it. I suspect many just don’t want to have that fight, and remain politically and culturally Christian.
In the end, however, liberals are very Darwinian. Their views are the result of trail and error. It is a result of knowing that the health, well-being and education of all in our community is in our best interest. Feeding, healing and educating your neighbors isn’t the act of some other world altruism. It comes from a basic, almost scientific, understanding of how the world works. We depend on each other, and any one suffering will eventually bring that suffering to others around them. Jesus of the bible didn’t need the empirical evidence that we have now, to know that the well being of all is in everyone’s self interest. He just did what Jesus would do.
Bomani Armah is The Watermelon Man 
I find that political party affiliation is very nuanced and complex yet in the end both Democrats and Republicans are different factions of the same party. If we look at Republicans, there are economic conservatives that are social moderates, social conservatives that are economically liberal, and republicans that are pro-military but want health care for all individuals. The same can be said for Democrats. Not all Democrats are in favor of abortion and gay rights and not all conservatives are opposed. I doubt Wall Street bankers are waving the flag of social conservatism yet they may find more support from the Republican party; although not always. When it comes to foreign policy Barack Obama is just as harsh on “America’s enemies” than any Republican. Drone strikes, killing American civilians, continuation of wars are all happening under this Democratic president. I think what’s important to note here is that both parties have been the only two parties in power for a long time and the country has not made any major advances toward progress. And the reason is because there are too many definitions of progress in America. There are too many views, creeds and ideas most of which are built on shaky ground. The idea of American exceptionalism is an idea bought into by both Democrats and Republicans but what makes America exceptional is not agreed upon. Is it our free market capitalism or our promotion of “human rights.” Or maybe it’s the fact we can drop an atomic bomb on Japan and forget about it and claim to have moral authority around the world. And this moral authority is bought into by both Democrats and Republicans. Liberals hold the banner of “human rights” but what exactly is that? Perhaps it’s the right of people to run their country as they see fit. Perhaps it’s using censorship to prevent what they feel is moral degradation. Maybe Muslims want to be ruled by the Sharia law. Maybe liberalism isn’t the answer to every problem. I find that liberals and conservatives are equally intolerant of opposing views. And in the end what do we have? Poverty, prison, horrible wage labor, wars, and every other social ill under both parties. Clinton dropped bombs, Bush dropped bombs and Obama will continue to drop bombs. And if Romney is elected, he’ll drop bombs too. This idea of “caring for mankind” goes out of the window when confronted with an opposing world view. Basically, this political system is a mess, and unlike Darwin I do not think it’s random. This is a mess that was deliberately created.
The fundamental flaw in your logic is the concept of help. Nobody wants to see a fellow human suffer, but the Democrats have used social welfare to enslave generations of minorities. That is worse. Redistribution is an epic fail. Build a man a fire and he will be warm for a night. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life.
no wants people dependent, but who am i to tell someone when they’ve had enough help. our job isn’t to judge the needy, but to help them. if they abuse it, it’s on their conscious
The Federal Reserve controls inflation and deflation. The government holds no rule or regulation over the Federal Reserve, as they are a privately owned entity (not government owned). You probably already know this, but then you also have to realize that both the Republican and Democratic party are two very well thought out psychological concepts. Countless independent studies on psychology and more importantly sociology, have taught us how people think, particularly in groups. The ones in control of our government never want you completely backing one side or the other. If you never completely agree with who you voted for, then if they win the office and of course don’t meet up to your expectations, there’s always something you agree with in the other party that might cause you to lean in that direction next election. The Republicans and Democrats are two “opposite” poles, who in actuality are two systems of mindsets that have fused, contradictory beliefs. Religion of course helps promote this, as man’s religions have always taken the simplest things and made them complex.
Science on the other hand has always attempted to simplify seemingly complex things through explanation. If we scientifically criticize the two major parties of government and how they interact with the Federal Reserve, it’s not hard to come to the conclusion that it’s in the best interest of the Federal Reserve to keep the mass public confused at all time, so the two major political parties in the United States, are formed, fused and executed perfectly if you ask me.
i wouldn’t say they are “opposite” poles. i’m guessing that’s why you put the word in quotes. i agree, the way they perpetuate the myth of choice is perfectly executed.
People seem to wonder how and when humanity went wrong. I think it depends on how you see humanity. I think the primary difference between man and animal used to be communication. Communication allowed us to rise to the top of the food chain as we passed knowledge on to other people, tribes, offspring etc. Once religion (or ancient politics) became involved, so began the decline of our existence as knowledge became controlled and censored. People’s thoughts, ideas and productivity could be construed as “evil” or “sacrilege”, especially if it didn’t benefit the ones who ruled. I see it as simple as this: Our species shared information and branched the knowledge outward like the growth of a tree. All men were given the chance to live smarter, healthier, easier than past generations because of such sharing of knowledge. Once religion/ gov’t was founded, man adopted the “pyramid” authority structure we have today and thus began the fall of our civilization. I’m not saying religion and government have always hindered man. On the contrary they have benefited him greatly at times. If you feed a starving dog, it may benefit him greatly. If you continue to feed him, he will continue to be nourished. There doesn’t see, to be any kind of drawback to this, unless the dog wishes to return to the wild. He is now far less equipped to handle the environment he came from. I think peopple are the same. They will accept as much help as is offered to them, but if they wish to ever truly feel free, they will have to refuse the help at some point and “de-evolve” back from which they came.