Democrats are generally more liberal. They believe in a larger federal government, and often implement tax plans to try to help the less privileged. They tend to believe the government must look for the greater good above the individual person in terms of welfare and do what is necessary to make the populace more "equal". They assert that the values our country holds must evolve over time, and, therefore, tend to support such controversial choices as Pro Choice and gay marriage.

Republicans are generally more conservative. They believe that the answers do not lay with the government generally, but rather with the people. They want less government interference and tend to believe more strongly in property rights and less strongly in well-fare rights, holding economic equity above equality. Many republicans are religious and tend to hold to the morals characterizing the Founding Fathers, which results in general disapproval of abortions and, for some, gay marriage.

Additional input and opinions from contributors:

• To sum it up, Democrats lean toward equality under a large federal government. Republicans lean towards people looking after themselves and their neighbors under small federal government and strong state governments.
• These are the two dominant parties in our political system. Generally, Republicans are more interested in regulating personal matters and in deregulation of business and economic matters. Democrats are generally more interested in deregulating personal matters and increasing regulation of economic/business matters. Democrats also believe in bigger government and more spending to expand government, while, unlike democrats, Republicans believe in less spending and a smaller government. Democrats believe in lowering the taxes on the poor, and increasing taxes on the rich, while Republicans want to lower taxes on everyone, not just poor people.

  Democrats are liberals while Republicans are conservatives.

• There is very little fundamental difference between Democrats and Republicans in practice. In general (theoretically) today, Republicans support less social freedom and more economic freedom, while Democrats support less economic freedom and more social freedom. Democrats are known as the "big government" party and Republicans as the "limited government" party, but in reality both parties support big government. Government has consistently grown under the power of both parties. Their foreign policies are very similar (interventionist), but each party seems to only support these policies when their administrations are administering them. The root of the Republican Party is limited government, but they generally do not execute this well. Also, what many Republicans defend as "capitalism" and "free markets" is really government-aided corporatism, which is not economic freedom at all. There has however been a backlash in the Republican Party to return to limited government roots, including both economic and social freedoms and a non-interventionist foreign policy.

  As for the terms "liberal" and "conservative", their meanings and connotations have become very confusing. "Conservative" and "Republican", and "Liberal" and "Democrat" have somewhat become interchangeable in today's society. However, "conservative" really means that one believes that things should stay the same, while "liberal" means that one believes things should change. Historically, societies had not been very free, so historical Liberals generally supported increased freedoms. The Founding Fathers of the United States were Liberals during their time, since they supported freedoms that did not exist in their society--they wanted things to change. However, today they would (probably) be considered Conservatives, since they supported limited government. Classifying people's political views today by these words is very confusing. Since today a "Conservative" is generally a Republican, and a "Liberal" is generally a Democrat, how does one classify someone who belongs to a third party? For example, Libertarians support economic freedoms as Republicans do, indicating they are Conservatives. On the other hand, they also support social freedoms as Democrats do, indicating they are Liberals. However, since historical Liberals (not to be confused with today's Democrats) were freedom-lovers, supporting all types of freedoms make Libertarians the ultimate Liberals, right? But then again, Libertarians are the ultimate proponents of the Republican roots of limited government. Libertarians want to limit government (in all areas) far more than Republicans, making Libertarians the ultimate Conservatives. Since one person can simultaneously be classified as super liberal and super conservative (which are opposites), these words do not have very good definitions in today's society and have very different meanings to different people.

• This is a pretty vague question but I will do my best to answer it. I am a republican so if I sound biased, sorry. Anyway, democrats believe in taxing and spending and republicans believe in saving and waiting or borrowing and spending. Abortion is one of the biggest arguments between the parties. Democrats are pro-choice which means that they want people to have the choice to abort. Republicans are pro-life which means they want to outlaw abortion. Next, is gay marriage. Democrats think that anyone has the right to get married while most republicans believe that marriage should only be between a man and a woman.

• There are lots of websites that distinguish the difference, just, they are usually biased to the brink. Best to watch the news or look up a dictionary definition.

  Republicans believe people are best taking care of themselves or helping others through private charity. Democrats believe the government is best at taking care of people.

• Republicans think that everyone can care for themselves on their own they are more independent Democrat is more groups and everyone together, everyone takes care of each other. Obviously McCain is republican and Obama is democrat. They are both explainable beliefs.

• Democrats: pro-choice, more gun control, more government power - Republicans: pro-life, less gun control, less government power

• Leaving out any kind of value judgments, the difference in the parties is ideological... Democrats believe in rights. Democrats believe that you have certain rights as citizens, taking it as far as the right to health care. Republicans believe in privilege. Republicans believe that you can have only that which you can afford or earn. That's it in a nutshell but you need to decide which you think is the better ideology. Do you think you should be given things as a citizen or should you have to work for what you get?

• All of you had valid points. I find myself in between though. I see both sides. When I go to the ballots I find myself wanting to vote for both dem. and rep., but their is another thing that I have noticed. People today do not vote for who they want in office. They vote for who they do not want in office.

Note: If you would like to add to the answer, click on the "Discuss Question" button below.

For example ...many people believe they get free health care... but its not,,,they collect the money from the people...they would say we get the money from mean rich people and business...but they too just charge more money....its a great scam to get control and power...

Some tout socialist policy because they believe in it?

Answer

Politicians offer what they know, through polls or other sources, what people want to hear. Americans hear "socialism" as a code word for communism and supporting undeserving lazy people with free stuff. However, in a progressive sense the idea offers protections to citizens. That means, everyone has free public education, healthcare, there is a safety net in case you lose your job, and food and rental aid if you are underemployed. Our times are fraught with changes in employment - you can't count on that manufacturing job since it either is being shipped overseas or the product has become obsolete. Global changes in other areas are coming, too. People's savings and equity disappeared into the economic maw of investors in Wall Street. Profits went offshore and therefore were untaxed. All along, people have made poor decisions, but recovery is difficult when so many things are uncertain. So, here we are. The people against "free stuff" see it as helping the undeserving poor and making it too difficult to build a business. The socialists see that we need to set up the governmental rules and laws so that everyone supports the community/state/country. This is less individualistic; people may have to pay a bit more in taxes, but then we will leave roads, schools and other institutions well supported for the next generation.

As an earlier respondent to this question stated, socialism involves the government providing things for people regardless of their ability to pay. Promoting these policies pays a double benefit to politicians. The first benefit is that they get to sound like they "really care" about the "little guy". The second benefit, and the most important one to many politicians, is that they perpetuate dependence on government. Thus, they guarantee for themselves the continued loyalty of those dependent people by being the ones who promise to keep paying.

In other words, people who would prefer to spend their days watching Jerry Springer rather than getting a job and becoming productive members of society will repeatedly vote for the politicians that will enable them to keep watching Springer by providing for them whether they produce or not.

It's taking money from the producers, and using that money to buy the votes of the lazy.

I like Americans but one of the things I don't understand about America is the fact that many Americans seem to be incapable of telling the difference between Socialism,social democracy,liberal democracy,communism and almost every other ism.

Socialsim is a political idea which has been around for a long time,certainly since the French Revolution. Like all other idea it has changed over the years and there are different strands. In the 19 century people putting forward the idea of social welfare laws might have been called socialist but by the mid 20 century most politicians would be for some welfare laws.

There is a book about American history called "THE LAND OF PLENTY" and it puts forward the idea that because Americans can move around if the local ecomomy goes bad or they fall out with their neighbours or employer then they fail to make the class and community connections that European people often do so they are more individual in out look than europeans. Wheter they are actually better off is another story. So mant Americans have had problems understanding the idea of socialism and of course the problem of communism meant that socialist ideas never became popular in America. western democratic socialist such as the British Labour Party believe in democracy,indeed Britain would not be a democracy without them. They are not communists and they do not want the state to onw or do everything,but they think in the rral world the state is always going to be there and it may as well help the people and not just lock them up.

The American view of the state seems odd to us europeans. The average American does not approve of the state having a role in the economy unless it is giving tax payers money to farmers and to what Eisenhower (not a socialist) called the military industrial complex. FDR created a sort of American welfare state to stop socialsm or communism or facism not to help it. The world has changed and so has political ideas. Most of the democrats in the US are not socialists or social democrats bur what if they were,it is not illegal. Most republicans are not closet Nazis,so try and look at things a bit deeper and not just call people names. Can anyone explain to me why old people in America get free health care no matter how much money they have but poor working people do not always get this.

I would like to point out that the NAZIS were socialists.

"That's what socialism is, Fred. The government provides everything."

no. as it has been pointed out there are different strands of socialist theory as there are with any other. i believe marxism to be the most historically comprehensive.

marx proposed socialism as a path to communism. communism is the idea of a society without a central state power, where producers own the means of production instead of a wealthy class that simply pays a wage, seeking minimum benefit to the worker. from this we should understand that the terminology "Communist Government," regime, dictator or whatever is oxymoronic. if there is a ruling class, it is not communism or socialism.

socialism as a path to communism is essentially a step of reform in which the state is maintained but with greater control by producers than the typical hierarchal forms. so it is not that the government provides everything, the government becomes a tool for producers- that is, those who create the things we use, also called workers- to use to create the social programs they find desirable or necessary.

it's also not that everyone is just a laborer with no one allowed to organize or invent things. the concepts are largely a response to industrialization which requires a fairly robotic workforce and has minimized independent trades.

i would argue that it is our current structure that encourages laziness as people seem to expect big business and politicians to solve all of our problems. the soviet union made claims to being socialist or communist to take advantage of the popular movement as a facade for totalitarian rule. as such, our politicians will say whatever they think the public wants to hear, but it has little effect on the core policies of maintaining a power elite.

the freedoms we have are the result of ongoing struggle. the ruling class must give in just enough to keep the people from revolting, yet the gap between rich and poor has consistently expanded. technically we have the freedom to choose our path but being born into wealth, receiving the best education, obviously provides greater opportunity. socialist and communist theory is principled on changing this disparity of privilege. whether you think that's a good idea or you're more of a social darwinist is not for me to say.

Answer

This question requires an opinionated answer. So any of these answer can be correct if that is how you feel. Politicians could honestly feel that socialism or social policies is what America needs? Or perhaps they know something about history that drives them towards it? But why? This is a very good topic/answer set. To directly answer the question. This is how I see it, and believe why politicians tout socialist policy.

Politicians who try and sell social policies to the masses in my books, are anti-American. Firstly, their are two parties and a few independents in the great USA. (Land of the free, Home of the brave, our capitalist, free enterprise, republic!) There is no socialist party, and if there was I'd pray to all things, they never get elected, and doubt they would. If you want to have a social, or even progressive outlook on governance, perhaps you should be in a socialist or progressive party?

Secondly, taking a social stance on topics typically aims to inspire a state of dependance. A variety of examples; (1)Shared tips, now you are dependent on your fellow workers to make that extra cash you worked extra hard to get. Sorry there Billy, 'most' people don't put in that extra work. Though because you did, you get to share it with your fellow lazy workers. Thanks there Billy. Should not the effort be rewarded, not vice-versa? (2)Heath care, OK. So again my opinion. I break my leg, I get cancer, anything. Why should I expect everyone else to pay for my misfortune. I'm sorry I just don't feel that way, maybe some people do though. I would rather not burden the entire masses, keep in mind it will not only be you, and force everyone to pay for my mistakes, misfortunes, or mistreatments. I will sort that all out myself thank you very much. A hot topic, and will state nothing more on that here. (3) Welfare, who is going to pay me the most to do absolutely nothing? Hummm. Let me go cast my vote. This third example is an importantly noted one. I feel that if you are on welfare, your voters registration should be temporary restricted from use until you are off welfare. Voting while on welfare as far as I can see, is bribery. Social policy leads to dependance, but then again, perhaps you like dependance and want someone to tell you what to do, I do not. I like to make all my own choices, suffering or benefiting accordingly.

Or perhaps it is jealousy that drives the socialist movement. The fact that others families worked to get where they are over time, or perhaps lucked out, and the fact that other families did not, I believe doesn't come into question with these people. A need to force a level of equal wealth amongst the people is strange to me (in thinking). I see it happen across the world, It saddens me. Anyone can see that if everyone was equally worth the same, had the same house and the same care, not only would life be very bland, but the economy simply could not work. Some people have more expensive tastes than others, and there is nothing wrong with that. Typically these people make the jobs, and create the wealth of the Country. They start major flows of cold hard cash. Appreciate these people, or bring yourself to their level, and have a say yourself. Do not drag everyone down to a level you see fit. That is the flaw of all social thinking. Or be satisfied to do your own socialist thing, act how you feel, don't force your thinking into policy. Free market environments are most fair.

Beware of the touting Socialtician.

Only my opinion.

But, you are right. Charity should start in your own Country first. I'll give you that one, and that one only. People should be donating their income, not having it stolen by Government.

Socialism, as defined, is a political system of communal ownership. Socialism, as practiced here in the U.S., is a social rather than political system. If you look at the U.S. budget, more money is spent on social programs than many countries GNP. I see the usual America bashing going on here, which is upsetting. What makes you think we don't understand the various -isms of the world? We do. Many of still believe that it's the individual's responsibility to provide for themselves, rather than the European model of "cradle to grave" government assistance. That attitude, and American industry is what has twice kept vast portions of Europe out of the hands of the Germans. In WWII Communists bore the brunt of destroying the NAZI (National Socialist) war machine. 75% of German soldiers who died were killed by Communist troops. The U.S. provided men and materiel to all fronts of the war, and that materiel kept Europe and the USSR alive until we could open other fronts.

Having said that, we should allow Ireland, being the world power that it is, to provide all the aid and assistance that the U.S. now provides to so many disaster struck countries. Whether you like it or not, the first question asked isn't "When are the Irish coming?", but "When are the Americans coming?". Guns, guns, guns. Boring, boring, boring. Yes, we have them. The IRA doesn't? We have the Second Amendment because the first thing the British did when we wanted our freedom was to try and disarm us, and because our Constitution calls on American citizens to defend themselves against tyranny and oppression by the government. We are noisy, brawling, have our problems, and are generous to our friends and defeated enemies, funloving, brave, and come to the aid of any that call us. We make mistakes. Show me a country that doesn't. We have meddled. Europe hasn't? When you point your finger at us, you have three pointing back at you. I like our system, I like our country, and I love our people. So do the millions of people from other countries that come here to be free. The United States- where people from other nations come to celebrate their cultures. Maybe we're not so bad after all. For those of you that don't like us, no worries. The next time you have a problem, turn to Canada, Mexico, or the African nation of your choice. Just don't mock us on one hand, and dial for help with the other any more. Politicians offer what they know, through polls or other sources, what people want to hear. Americans hear "socialism" as a code word for communism and supporting undeserving lazy people with free stuff. However, in a progressive sense the idea offers protections to citizens. That means, everyone has free public education, healthcare, there is a safety net in case you lose your job, and food and rental aid if you are underemployed. Our times are fraught with changes in employment - you can't count on that manufacturing job since it either is being shipped overseas or the product has become obsolete. Global changes in other areas are coming, too. People's savings and equity disappeared into the economic maw of investors in Wall Street. Profits went offshore and therefore were untaxed. All along, people have made poor decisions, but recovery is difficult when so many things are uncertain. So, here we are. The people against "free stuff" see it as helping the undeserving poor and making it too difficult to build a business. The socialists see that we need to set up the governmental rules and laws so that everyone supports the community/state/country. This is less individualistic; people may have to pay a bit more in taxes, but then we will leave roads, schools and other institutions well supported for the next generation.

Deval Patrick is an American politician, civil rights lawyer, and businessman who served as the governor of Massachusetts from 2007 to 2015. On Nov. 14, 2019, he announced his intention to run for president in 2020.

Patrick, a Democrat, grew up in Chicago and graduated from Harvard Law School in 1982. He worked for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund from 1983 to 1986, and later served as the assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division under President Bill Clinton.

In business, Patrick has served as general counsel for Texaco and The Coca-Cola Company. In the mid 2000s, he was on the board of directors for ACC Capital Holdings, and he most recently served as managing director at Bain Capital.

The New York Times characterized Patrick’s policy positions as "closer to the ideological center than the left."

In the United States Senate;

37 Senate Democrats are millionaires and

30 Senate Republicans are millionaires.

Read more: How_many_millionaires_are_democrat_congressmen

Superdelegates Superdelegates are non-elected voters who have the full power of delegates despite not being selected through primaries or caucuses. The Democratic National Committee is currently the only political party to appoint superdelegates or to have a weighted nomination system. The number of superdelegates appointed per state depends upon that state's population and Democratic voter registration, thereby giving more weight to states with stronger Democratic bases.

There are 796 super-delegates to the 2008 Democratic National Convention, comprising nearly one fifth of the total number of delegates.

About half of the super-delegates are current and former elected officials: all current Democratic Congressmen and Governors, and all former presidents, vice presidents, majority and minority leaders. The other half are members of the Democratic National Committee.

Super-delegacy as a feature of the nomination process has come under close scrutiny due to the very tight 2008 race.

2008 Democratic Presidential Nomination Race: Early in the process, most of the superdelegates were expected to support Hillary Clinton. There was a fear that Obama might win the majority of elected delegates, but Clinton would win a large enough majority of superdelegates to secure the nomination.

Barack Obama and his campaign officials suggested that this would lead to many of his supporters feeling disenfranchised, and that it would be wrong for the superdelegates to subvert the will of the voter should he win the majority of the popular vote. Clinton supporters countered that superdelegates were chosen as "super voters" by their own party, therefore more representative of the true will of the entire party.

Obama and Clinton lobbied the superdelegates aggressively. Most superdelegates have announced who they will support, but they are not committed irrevocably to one candidate until the Democratic National Convention in August.

If the Democratic primary race remained very close, the issue of superdelegation and the questions regarding the delegates from Michigan and Florida (see related question) may plunge the Democrats into a nightmare scenario: the supporters of the losing candidate may feel that the election was stolen from them, and thus might not support the winning candidate as actively as they otherwise would. This nightmare scenario however does not appear to be playing out, and as of May 11 Obama and Clinton are running even among superdelegates, with the AP reporting that Obama has taken the lead in superdelegates, and NBC reporting Clinton's superdelegate lead as down to 2.

The argument for: It is a representative means of completing a nomination via respected party leaders designed to balance the popular vote which can largely be unfamiliar with the realities of politics as well as uninformed on issues and actual candidate background and behavior.

The argument against: While the apportionment by region is representative, the selection of individuals isn't. It would be like letting George Bush select 435 super-voters, one from each Congressional district. Superdelegates allow the Democratic National Committee insiders to overrule the voters in a close election.

==========================================

Super delegate vs. Superdelegate vs. Super-delegate Because this is political jargon, the correct term might be super-delegate. However most news organizations including the AP, CNN, New York Times, and FoxNews have established "superdelegate" as the standard use of the term. The Democratic National Committee doesn't use the term at all, instead referring only to "Unpledged Delegates."

An Example: The following example was provided. A critique of it is presented below.

Imagine you live in a town where everyone decides to paint all the houses only one color. The town decides to have a vote to determine what color to use. If there are 10 people living in one house and only 3 living in another house, it would be unfair if everyones vote counted equally. It would be fair if every house had one vote. So the 10 vote for one person (a superdelegate or homeowner) to represent them, and likewise the 3 vote for one person to represent them. All these "one" persons, or super delegates gather to vote on what color to paint the houses, one vote per house. Easy enough. The fun part comes when the 6 out of the 10 in the one house want to paint the houses green, but the person they send decides to vote for orange. Now you and others in your area vote for a person to go make the "one" vote, maybe Obama, but that person may actually go vote for Clinton, or vice-versa. That person may be voted out of office when he returns, but the vote is already cast. Critique of Example: The above example may more accurately describe the electoral college, or the allocation of Pledged Delegates, then they describe superdelegates. Nobody votes for the superdelegates. They are appointed by the national committee. The Pledged Delegates (the not-so-super delegates) are the delegates whom the voters select.

========================================

Superdelegates are members of the Democratic Party who are not bound to vote for and individual based on popular vote (ie they are not representing anyone, except themselves). This gives Bill Clinton the freedom, for example, as a living ex-President to vote for Hilary in the Democratic Primary as a delegate, rather than following who his local delegate has voted for.

========================================

Super delegates are non-elected individuals who can support whatever candidate they wish and are used only by the Democratic Party during the presidential nomination. They are fiercely courted by the candidates since those votes can guarantee selection, regardless of the results of the popular vote.

========================================

Super delegates are simply a carry over from the old House of Burgesses and the present Electoral College. The elite white males will continue to run this country and determine its fate. It is not democratic in the least and should be abolished along with the Electoral College. Popular vote should be the only type of vote countable.

The old guard rules and always will until the rest of us get off our hineys and have this elitism abolished from the democratic process.