Oppositional View of Democratic Party

I recently attended Irin Carmon’s ‘Body Politics’ talk. One of the things that struck me was her clear distaste of the Republican Party. This is a common sentiment among feminists and gender studies related experts. This is understandable looking at the Democrats’ policies on women’s rights and abortion/contraception issues.

Yet I am curious what these experts think are the shortcomings of the Democratic Party. Surely, Democratic politicians made gaffes that show ignorance and misinformation. The Republican party cannot possibly be all evil and unsympathetic towards the people that it represents. Otherwise, no one would support them.

I do not know enough of this election season and politics in general to judge both parties equally. I guess I question this overwhelming approval of the Democratic Party and Obama. I wonder what the Democrats have failed to support or is wrongly supporting.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Spark Post. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Oppositional View of Democratic Party

  1. lauracrockett says:

    I don’t think these experts believe that the Democratic party is perfect in any sense. I think that compared to Republicans, the Democrats are much friendly in regards to gender issues, which is what these experts focus on. From Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, DOMA, Roe vs. Wade, and access to birth control, Democrats consistently side with both women and the LGBT community. Are they necessarily a “feminist” or LGBT friendly party? No, which means they may have shortcomings in these regards, but their ideology is formed from an idea of equality and respect for minorities. This, in turn, helps them support these marginalized communities consistently.
    The Republican party, in my opinion, is founded on states’ rights. The federal government, then, should not involve itself in social issues (and all LGBT, feminist issues are inherently social issues). This fundamental belief by the Republican party of states’ rights isolates them from social issues – allowing the party to be seen as uncaring. Instead, it’s that the party wants smaller constituents to decide for themselves. It’s hard to make sweeping statements about human rights when you want each state to decide for themselves.
    Now, I could continue with the general liberal argument that the Republican party’s inherent moralism, deriving from Christian-centered ideals, reinforces the white, heterosexual male’s power in society – but I think that becomes very polarizing and probably would stifle more discussion than it would provoke. Instead, it’s a matter of focus: nation vs state, national social issues vs state social issues.

What do you have to say about this?

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s