![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
While reading more of Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States this morning, I thought about the way lots of people in the present day claim to perceive no difference between Republicans and Democrats worth getting passionate over. They claim that the two main parties are both serving the interests of the societal elite and that voting for either of them doesn't matter.
I think there have been times in the past when that was the case. The election of Hayes following Grant was perhaps one such time. The choices were the candidate of the Democratic South, or the Republican North's candidate, Hayes, who could not have been elected without the major compromises he made with his opposition to end government support for black civil rights struggles.
The Civil War can be put in that framework too; the result of a clash of interests between the elite of the South and the elite of the North, with the middle classes and poor coming along for the ride. In 1860, there truly weren't any feasible presidential candidates who were focused primarily on enfranchisement of slaves. Lincoln could be argued to have focused on keeping Southern states in the union and creating a country favorable for Northern industrialists, while Southern candidates were clearly in favor of the status quo of slavery. I'd still have voted Lincoln and felt like there was a significant difference between he and his opposition. But did that difference have anything to do with an honest intent to make the country a more equal and just nation? That could be argued on forever.
What about today? I feel like the Democratic party really cares about making life better for middle and lower class people, and that the Republican party is primarily focused on the upper class. A lot of people don't agree with that, and feel that both Republicans and Democrats are servants of the elite and that votes should either go for third parties or are meaningless.
I want to do some reading of good arguments that the Democratic party is no more oriented to social welfare and equality of representation and so on, at a national level, than the Republican party is. I'd like to read about how and why people have come to the position that both parties are all the same whether in motivation or effect, and see what I think about those arguments.
I think there have been times in the past when that was the case. The election of Hayes following Grant was perhaps one such time. The choices were the candidate of the Democratic South, or the Republican North's candidate, Hayes, who could not have been elected without the major compromises he made with his opposition to end government support for black civil rights struggles.
The Civil War can be put in that framework too; the result of a clash of interests between the elite of the South and the elite of the North, with the middle classes and poor coming along for the ride. In 1860, there truly weren't any feasible presidential candidates who were focused primarily on enfranchisement of slaves. Lincoln could be argued to have focused on keeping Southern states in the union and creating a country favorable for Northern industrialists, while Southern candidates were clearly in favor of the status quo of slavery. I'd still have voted Lincoln and felt like there was a significant difference between he and his opposition. But did that difference have anything to do with an honest intent to make the country a more equal and just nation? That could be argued on forever.
What about today? I feel like the Democratic party really cares about making life better for middle and lower class people, and that the Republican party is primarily focused on the upper class. A lot of people don't agree with that, and feel that both Republicans and Democrats are servants of the elite and that votes should either go for third parties or are meaningless.
I want to do some reading of good arguments that the Democratic party is no more oriented to social welfare and equality of representation and so on, at a national level, than the Republican party is. I'd like to read about how and why people have come to the position that both parties are all the same whether in motivation or effect, and see what I think about those arguments.