By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
HappySqurriel on 21 December 2010
Edit Thread
GameOver22 said:
HappySqurriel said:
GameOver22 said:

Do you have any data on that claim or is it just a personal observation? The big difference between Republicans and Democrats comes down to the proper role of the state in relation to citizens. If you really look at most issues, they originate with the problem of government power. The big question is, "What roles can the government perform better than its citizens?" The fundamental ideals of both parties are not arrived at through emotional arguments. It comes about largely because of a different conception of how society functions. In other words, you could say they ground their arguments with different claims. Now on moral issues, emotional arguments are more prevalent, but this is true for both Republicans and Democrats.

It is just a personal observation ...

With that in mind, how many positions are taken by progressive individuals which don't resort to appealing to people's emotions by claiming someone (or a group) is being victimized? Can you name a political position of the left which at its core isn't an emotional argument?

Claiming someone is being victimized is not necessarily an emotional argument. One fundamental argument would be that racism is wrong because all humans are created equal and deserve to be treated as equals. I'm not saying this argument is relevant in today's political debate, but I'm using it as an example to show that claiming someone is victimized is not necessarily an emotional argument. It can be principle based. In this case, it is based on human rights.

Just about every position is based on principle or logic. There might be some that use emotional arguments, but this is just as true about the Republicans. Take taxation as an example. Democrats are going to want to redistribute the wealth more than Republicans by taxing the upper classes more and giving more tax breaks to the lower class. This view can be derived from the general welfare clause, and a Democrat could argue that building up the lower class is in the best interest of the nation because a strong middle-class is essential for a strong and prosperous nation. That is just one example, but prety much all issues can be addressed in a similar manner, and I addressed the issue without recourse to emotions or emotional language.


First off, if the argument against extending the tax cuts was based on a reasoned argument those taking that position would have to concede that the wealthy individuals they intend to tax generally get most of their earnings through capital gains and not through income so that increasing the income tax is meaningless pandering; and, even if this wasn't the case, increasing the income tax on the wealthy will only encourage a return to company paid benefits (free rent, company car, etc.) to offset lost income, and for companies to find other loopholes to allow their high paid employees more without them taking a tax hit.

Secondly, this isn't the argument that the vast majority of progressive individuals will use; and it is probably not an argument that they have ever heard. The typical argument used would typically be that the distribution of wealth in our society is entirely unfair and it is the government's job to redistribute the wealth to help out all those poor people who are being exploited by the wealthy.