Why do some libertarians vote for Democrats?

[Howard_Roark]

This is something that I fundamentally don't understand. According to "The Libertarian Vote in the Age of Obama" 59% of young libertarians voted for Obama and 27% of all libertarians. I'm a libertarian interested in limited government, and I find the Democratic party and its goal of big government to be the antithesis of everything I believe in.

[wormyguy]

They confuse the Democratic base with the Democratic Party and think that the Democrats actually have a pro-civil liberties, anti-drug war, non-interventionist platform.

[libertarian4321]

This is something that I fundamentally don't understand. According to "The Libertarian Vote in the Age of Obama" 59% of young libertarians voted for Obama and 27% of all libertarians. I'm a libertarian interested in limited government, and I find the Democratic party and its goal of big government to be the antithesis of everything I believe in.

My guess is that they saw no libertarian candidate on the ballot- here in TX, we had a choice of Obama, Barr, and McCain, NONE of whom are libertarian- and just voted for the guy they perceived to be the lesser evil.

And yeah, I'll bet a lot of them at least hoped they'd be better off voting for the guy who said he was anti-war rather than voting for the war hawks.

I doubt many (any?) of them thought Obama supported limited government.

BTW, I know a fair number of Libertarians who were Dems- many of them don't see the Republican Party as being "more fiscally conservative" (because it's not) and feel that the Dems are less likely to stomp on individual freedoms.

[awake]

Why do some libertarians vote for Democrats?

There not libertarians. The're Democrats.

[emazur]

My guess would be that here the term "libertarian" is using the broad definition of someone who is socially moderate & wants lower taxes. Obama put out the image that he is socially moderate (certainly much more so than McCain/Palin) and he promised lower taxes for everyone making under 250k/yr. An equally good question be why would libertarians (including people who should know better like Goldwater Jr.) vote for McCain, a Teddy Roosevelt ~ Woodrow Wilson style progressive who advocated for a stimulus even AFTER the election (just not the same one Obama wanted) and who advocated "spreading the wealth" in his 2000 campaign:
YouTube - McCain: "The Spread the Wealth Around Is Certainly Not Something I Would Ever Do." Oct. 2008 vs 2000 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvM3_ZH9euc)

[speciallyblend]

mccain,cheney,bush force them to because they do not want the republicans in office and it is a two-party system and democrats and republicans at the local level could be libertarians and no one is 100% perfect even Ron Paul!!!!!!! I think that generally covers various reasonings!!
2nd reason, they do not like the republican running but they want to make sure the republican loses so they choose a lesser of 2 evils and do not vote 3rd party(out of fear the gop establishment might win), just to make sure the lying scumbug republican loses even though a lying scumbug democrat wins. The New American Dream!!

ps note i voted Chuck Baldwin 2008 ,Liberty Candidates 2010, Ron Paul 2012

[tnvoter]

Seriously guys there are a few democrats out there who may have liberty based principles that they stick to. Just as there are with republicans. It's hard to look on the other side, voting for Obama and calling yourself a libertarian however... is a different story... maybe now they know better though :)

[Sola_Fide]

No educated libertarian can vote for a Democrat (or establishment Republican, really).

I volunteered for the Constitution Party in Indiana when I was in college and it was the first time my eyes were opened to the fact that a person MUST make their political choices consistent with their political worldview.

Democrats are Statists. Republicans (except 4 or 5 that I can think of) are Statists.

[freshjiva]

Because libertarians are a hybrid of the best of the Democratic and Republican parties.

Clearly I was naive, but I voted for Obama in 2008 based on his rhetoric about ending corporatism in this country.

But that could be one reason why libertarians vote Democratic -- they appeal to libertarians on civil liberties, corporatism, and foreign policy issues.

[silentshout]

To some, it's the lesser of two evils, especially if they value civil liberties more than economic ones. But no, I wouldn't say that they were libertarian, just that they share some similar views.

[Depressed Liberator]

Why do some libertarians vote for Republicans?

[libertarian4321]

Because libertarians are a hybrid of the best of the Democratic and Republican parties.

Clearly I was naive, but I voted for Obama in 2008 based on his rhetoric about ending corporatism in this country.

But that could be one reason why libertarians vote Democratic -- they appeal to libertarians on civil liberties, corporatism, and foreign policy issues.

Yup, the Dems lie about those issues to get libertarian votes, just as Republicans lie and claim to be fiscal conservatives to get libertarian votes :)

[Stary Hickory]

This is something that I fundamentally don't understand. According to "The Libertarian Vote in the Age of Obama" 59% of young libertarians voted for Obama and 27% of all libertarians. I'm a libertarian interested in limited government, and I find the Democratic party and its goal of big government to be the antithesis of everything I believe in.

I am with you here. Especially the current crop of Democrats. In the past they were not THAT bad. Or they never seemed like it. The Democrats today are crazy. It is the same type of demogaugery that killed many a nation, and the Democrats are the major pushers of this stuff. If you compare the GOP against the Democrats, there is much more to find as far as liberty is concerned with the GOP, they are bad...they are all bad, but as of late the Dems have become something of a problem for anyone who loves liberty.

People point to the wars, but really this is more or less a recent development for the GOP. Isolationism(as it was called) was always more prevalent in the Republican party than the Democratic party prior to the Bushies. The Democrats have started just as many wars when looking back. They have quite a few big ones under their belts.

As far as social issues, this myth that Republicans are more interested in social issues is silly, and really stems from supporters of abortion. An issue which any libertarian ought to see from both sides. For sure protecting lives is the ultimate responsibility of a libertarian society, since it is the ultimate form of property that an individual might have.

As for me I have a hard time figuring out exactly which social issues these people are referring to. For me, telling me how big my toilet should be, or how to care for my body, or what to eat, what kind of car to drive...are all social issues. I don't see Democrats pushing to legalize prostitution or even legalize drugs. They play lipservice off and on, but really if they are willing to shoot you over the amount of salt in a piece of chicken, what really makes people think they will let you smoke marijuana or anything else?

The GOP is constantly at least putting forth the mantra of limited government, smaller government, less spending. These all lead to greater liberty for everyone. They certainly have a piss poor track record, but of course even as krappy as the GOP is, if not for some resistance we would have had a much more progressive loony agenda already in place. I am not going to cheer lead for the GOP, as I would just as soon see a libertarian party(that could win and not just throw the election to progressives everytime) than the GOP.

But when some libertarian says he leans Democrat..I wonder why. I mean these wars are recent developments as far as being party specific. To say the Democratic party is anti war is silly, considering their long history starting them. It's more accurate to say they are anti-GOP.

The entire thrust of the liberty movement has found traction only among independents and the GOP. Even with the Neocon taint that there is at times there is nothing like this on the left....nothing that could ever have a place with the current Democratic party. There is not one aspect of our lives that the Democrats do not feel they have a right to mettle with, forcibly. The FED will be audited and challenged not by the Democrats but by the GOP(if it is to happen). Democrats want as much funding as they can get, they have become a party of demogauges. Without access to other people's property they cannot afford to buy off a voter base.

The progressive/leftist agenda has done more to destroy the Constitution. FDR steam rolled the Constitution as did Wilson before that. All of our Social programs were progressive inventions that are now bloated and killing us. It does not mean the GOP are good at all, they certainly have created a lot of garbage laws and programs. But when I look at the Dems and the Republicans I see no hope with the Dems. There is at the very least a public outcry from the GOP voter base about the size of government and spending. GOP voters and indies are actually cleaning house to some extent. This gives me some hope.

At this point in time the Dems have become something along the lines of an enemy to freedom. They put themselves there, I did not. I have never voted for a president GOP or DEM. I just never cared enough, it did not seem to matter. Politicians all seemed like krap to me. And really after Bush this last time I really felt like Obama should win as the GOP had really acted like a bunch of hypocrites. However after what the Democrats have done, the spending, the insane Obamacare, protecting the FED with the financial bill...and all the bribes, backroom deals, and freebies to their political friends...well I am now dead set against the Democrats.

It's not my fault they want nothing but bigger government, that they want to take people's property and give it away for political support, that they know NOTHING about economics..or even common sense for that matter. I don't think the GOP is the answer to anything, I think secession and states right will change things much more dramatically..but I do see more freedom being lost(at a much quicker pace) in this country the longer the Dems stay in power. This current crop of Dems is poison. If we are not willing to give them a thrashing and make them regret what they have done...then what? We just let this fester and our liberties and freedoms be taken from us?

The Dems have lost any kind of moderation in their ranks. It at least made them palpable to an extent. Now it just seems the worst leftist/progressive you can think of occupies every seat in the Democratic party. Before it did not seem like this. Obamacare is a great example. It is unworkable, it makes no sense, it almost seems designed to destroy private health care and cause misery. It has wild provisions in it like the 600 dollar 1099 tax forms. It cannot work, it was a lie from start to finish and was only passed with dirty tricks, bribes and a circumvention of the democratic process. And the Dems voted for this practically to the man. When did this become ok?

[Stary Hickory]

Yup, the Dems lie about those issues to get libertarian votes, just as Republicans lie and claim to be fiscal conservatives to get libertarian votes :)

Probably so, but the Dems and the Republicans have vast differences. When people say they are exactly alike I cannot disagree more. The problem is our Democracy. It's not supposed to be a full blown Democracy where everyone's rights are determined by 51% of the population. And moreover of those 51% most don't have any clue what is really going on in the world. This is what is killing us. A government must have limits or it becomes mob rule.

People want to be lied to...if you tell the truth you will not be elected more than likely. All of this deception and self deception, combined with a good dose of plain ignorance and a dash of malice from politicians makes for quite a corrupt and morally apprehensible government,.

[low preference guy]

Probably so, but the Dems and the Republicans have vast differences. When people say they are exactly alike I cannot disagree more.

Yeah, they're really different. One proposes a maximum income tax rate of 37% while the other of 33%! :rolleyes:

Now, seriously, I'll say they are different if one wanted to keep the maximum income tax rate at 37% and the other wanted to abolish the income tax. Otherwise, the difference between them doesn't make it worthy to go and vote instead of taking a nap.

[Stary Hickory]

Yeah, they're really different. One proposes a maximum income tax rate of 37% while the other of 33%! :rolleyes:

Now, seriously, I'll say they are different if one wanted to keep the maximum income tax rate at 37% and the other wanted to abolish the income tax. Otherwise, the difference between them doesn't make it worthy to go and vote instead of taking a nap.

No you are really not presenting correctly at all. They cannot ask for less for very obvious reasons. If they were to try and lower it to say 23%...what would happen. The Democrats would say that Republicans are for the rich....the usual mantra.

The proponents of a flat tax or "fair" tax are Republicans(as bad as the fiar tax might be...it is at least less progressive and simpler than the one we have now). In general the GOP voter bases is the reason why we still don't have 70% taxes on the rich. Everything is a compromise and yoy should realize this. 33% or 37% represents a pull from the GOP for a lower rate and a tug from the Dems for a higher rate. To say the Dems are for 37% and the GOP for 33% is absolutely absurd. Now I will caveat this, I am not saying the GOP is wonderful, but you put this specific issue forward. And on this one it's accurate to say no one is happy in DC with 33% or 37% taxes on the rich. One side wants it higher and the other lower.

[low preference guy]

No you are really not presenting correctly at all. They cannot ask for less for very obvious reasons. If they were to try and lower it to say 23%...what would happen. The Democrats would say that Republicans are for the rich....the usual mantra.

The proponents of a flat tax or "fair" tax are Republicans. In general the GOP voter bases is the reason why we still don't have 70% taxes on the rich. Everything is a compromise and yoy should realize this. 33% or 37% represents a pull from the GOP for a lower rate and a tug from the Dems for a higher rate. To say the Dems are for 37% and the GOp for 33% is absolutely absurd.

I call bullshit. Ron Paul says he wants to abolish the income tax and that's not what causes him trouble politically. He gets into trouble because his foreign policy views are unpopular. The majority of Republicans don't give a damn about anything except getting re-elected (and maybe blowing up some muslims).

[AuH20]

A quarter of the current republicans are what I would describe as reliable. With the democrats there's a handful.

[Ekrub]

Depends, seems to definetely be a divide on this board though. Some people tend to give certain Republicans a pass over Democrats based on taxes/fed/deregulation, and some seem to give certain Democrats a pass over Republicans based on civil liberties/war/fed(grayson). Guess it depends on what you think is most important.

I view the Fed and the wars as the most important issues, so Grayson is the ONLY democrat I could see myself voting for if a better option wasn't available. However I find myself more times than not voting for Republicans in state elections.

[Imperial]

I am a Republican, but there are a couple of Democrats who I would support. The one that always comes to my head first and foremost is Kinky Friedman, who after running in the Ag Commisioner primary here in Texas endorsed Kathie Glass for Governor.

I think one reason some libertarians support Democrats is there are major differences between factions of liberty-lovers that sometimes don't get noticed because our numbers are so small. For example, there is the clash between consequentialist libertarians, liberaltarians, Ron Paul libertarians, and your an-caps. An easier way to describe this difference is the ideological divide between FA Hayek, who was for some programs many here call statist like social insurance, and Murray Rothbard, who wrote his famous essay on the moral opposition to state action.

I find myself falling into the Hayekian camp, but Dr. Paul's ideology (and a greater number of people here on RPF) would fall more into the Rothbardian camp.

[AJ Antimony]

Simple:

Everyone knows a third party candidate can't win.
For most people this means you can't vote third party.
So then they look at the R and the D.
McCain campaigned like the hated George Bush, and Obama campaigned against Bush by for example calling for an end to the Iraq war.

Who do you think a typical young person would vote for in this case?

Do NOT think that a lot of young libertarians voting for Obama in 2008 means a lot of young libertarians currently vote Democrat.

[nobody's_hero]

Because the only way to get rid of some republicans is to send them packing in the general election?

That might be the best reason I could think of.

The only democrat I've ever voted for is my sheriff. I know him on a personal level and he does a pretty good job.

[Humanae Libertas]

The same reason why some Libertarians vote for Republicans.

I know most Civil Libertarians vote for Democrats because it was really Republicans that pushed REAL ID, PATRIOT ACT, E-Verify, Iraq-War, etc..

[Ireland4Liberty]

It is a pitty your system was designed for two parties. I guess it was implement because of the sheer distance to Washington, fractions would cause voting difficulty but also the need of having control between two parties made gov simpler.

I propose get rid of parties and label them for what they should be. Action committees. People should not look a R or D but should look at the person principles. If there was no R or D people would pay more notice to whom they were electing.

[Danke]

No educated libertarian can vote for a Democrat (or establishment Republican, really).

I volunteered for the Constitution Party in Indiana when I was in college and it was the first time my eyes were opened to the fact that a person MUST make their political choices consistent with their political worldview.

Democrats are Statists. Republicans (except 4 or 5 that I can think of) are Statists.


This.

[Travlyr]

This is something that I fundamentally don't understand. According to "The Libertarian Vote in the Age of Obama" 59% of young libertarians voted for Obama and 27% of all libertarians. I'm a libertarian interested in limited government, and I find the Democratic party and its goal of big government to be the antithesis of everything I believe in.
"Saying it don't make it so." And the Republicans always say it: "GOP calls for limited government." (http://tech.mit.edu/V114/N63/gingrich.63w.html)

Meanwhile, Republican lawmakers have grown government every single year that they have been in power since 1860. Facts are facts.

Murray Rothbard
Published in the Libertarian Forum, August 15, 1969 (http://mises.org/mobile/daily.aspx?Id=3090).
"I got out of the Right-wing not because I ceased believing in liberty, but because being a libertarian above all, I came to see that the Right-wing specialized in cloaking its authoritarian and neo-fascist policies in the honeyed words of libertarian rhetoric. They need you for their libertarian cover; stop providing it for them!"
The Republicans and Democrats work for the banks, not you. I offer this evidence as proof: September 27, 2010. (http://ezinearticles.com/?Condoning-Fraud,-Expanding-Federal-Government---The-Interstate-Recognition-of-Notarizations-Act-1&id=5175340)

Interstate Recognition of Notarizations Act (http://hotair.com/archives/2010/10/07/obama-to-pocket-veto-stealth-bill-that-would-make-foreclosures-easier-for-banks/).

The bill, passed without public debate in a way that even surprised its main sponsor, Republican Representative Robert Aderholt, requires courts to accept as valid document notarizations made out of state, making it harder to challenge the authenticity of foreclosure and other legal documents…

The bill’s approval involved invocation of a special procedure. Democratic Senator Robert Casey, shepherding last-minute legislation on behalf of the Senate leadership, had the bill taken away from the Senate Judiciary committee, which hadn’t acted on it.

Aderholt’s bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent on Sept. 27 and went to The One’s desk for signature, where it languished until all hell broke loose online this morning. The fear, of course, is that Congress is trying to reduce the backlog of foreclosure proceedings and thereby save lots of time and legal expense by letting banks railroad homeowners with bogus affidavits. Or, as John Carney of CNBC puts it, “It could be a backdoor bailout of the liar foreclosure problems of big mortgage lenders”

[Stary Hickory]

Because the only way to get rid of some republicans is to send them packing in the general election?

That might be the best reason I could think of.

The only democrat I've ever voted for is my sheriff. I know him on a personal level and he does a pretty good job.

Fine but by the same token this rule ought to apply to Democracts too. I don't have a problem with people wanting to punish bad lawmakers at all. It seems almost ironic that after the worst GOP in recent history we get the worst Dems in recent history. The people literally cannot win.

[johnrocks]

Most people have a "lesser of two evils" or two party mindset. As much of a small government "old right" conservative as I am, I could not vote for a liberal Democrat but having said that, they don't normally irritate my ulcers like neo/social "conservatives" do so that may be a reason.

[wormyguy]

The Republicans and Democrats work for the banks, not you. I offer this evidence as proof: September 27, 2010. (http://ezinearticles.com/?Condoning-Fraud,-Expanding-Federal-Government---The-Interstate-Recognition-of-Notarizations-Act-1&id=5175340)

Uhh, that's a good idea, and necessary for the free flow of interstate commerce.

[TheBlackPeterSchiff]

I remember when Obama was running he gave props to Ron Paul, talked about ending the Patriot Act, Police brutality, Ending the War on Drugs, etc. I knew it was all a lie but some people fell for it.

[erowe1]

This is something that I fundamentally don't understand. According to "The Libertarian Vote in the Age of Obama" 59% of young libertarians voted for Obama and 27% of all libertarians. I'm a libertarian interested in limited government, and I find the Democratic party and its goal of big government to be the antithesis of everything I believe in.

The word "libertarian" is used all sorts of ways.

How was it used in the survey you're talking about? Was it just people who describe themselves as libertarians without respect for any underlying beliefs?

If so, that's very believable. People describe themselves as "libertarian" for reasons that run the political gamut. Take Bill Maher, for example.

[acptulsa]

Why wouldn't we have given them real liberty candidates to vote for?

The fault is wholly our own.

[erowe1]

Why wouldn't we have given them real liberty candidates to vote for?

The fault is wholly our own.

I doubt that the self-identified libertarians who voted for Obama over Barr and Baldwin would have voted for whatever "real liberty candidate" we might have given them instead of those two.

[paulitics]

Obama ran on a much more libertarian platform than McCain. He promised to undo alot of the civil liberites violations of the Bush admionstration, as well as close Gitmo, and end the war in iraq.

On economics, he ran as a moderate. He criticised Hillary for bringing up mandated government health insurance, and promised to not raise taxes.

Obama sounded good because he lied.

[erowe1]

Obama ran on a much more libertarian platform than McCain. He promised to undo alot of the civil liberites violations of the Bush admionstration, as well as close Gitmo, and end the war in iraq.
That's not quite true. In addition to promising to pursue single-payer healthcare, or something like it, along with cap and trade, he also ran on a platform that was pretty much as hawkish as McCain's, the main difference being that Obama wanted to put more emphasis on the war in Afghanistan than McCain did. He also was a very mixed bag on civil liberties issues, and was on balance not that different from Bush, and that's not just after he got into the WH, but it was already apparent during the campaign for the general election.



On economics, he ran as a moderate. He criticised Hillary for bringing up mandated government health insurance, and promised to not raise taxes.
Being against mandates because you want something that's more purely socialist and less capitalist doesn't make one a moderate.



Obama sounded good because he lied.
Not really. The Obama we got is pretty much the same as the Obama of the general election campaign.

[paulitics]

That's not quite true. In addition to promising to pursue single-payer healthcare, or something like it, along with cap and trade, he also ran on a platform that was pretty much as hawkish as McCain's, the main difference being that Obama wanted to put more emphasis on the war in Afghanistan than McCain did. He also was a very mixed bag on civil liberties issues, and was on balance not that different from Bush, and that's not just after he got into the WH, but it was already apparent during the campaign for the general election.


Being against mandates because you want something that's more purely socialist and less capitalist doesn't make one a moderate.


Not really. The Obama we got is pretty much the same as the Obama of the general election campaign.

He definately ran against Bush on civil liberites, and was a major part of his campaign. It was one of the reasons there was such passion for Obama from the youth, which is quickly dwindling away.

As far as healthcare, he admitted that ideally he would like a single payer, but that it isn't feasible. His near term ideas were moderate, and he criticised Hillary for her idea of a mandate.
I understand that this is a socialist philosophy, but he did not run on immediately turning healthcare into single payer, just like Rand is not running on eliminating Social Security tomorrow.

As far as cap and trade, I'll have to look it up, but I don't remember him being a screaming socialist on this one either. Part of why he was effective, is because he never gave specifics, but just said stuff everyone agrees with, like "cleaning up the environment.

As far as the war, I agree, he was more aggressive on Afghanastan. There was this perception that Obama would be "tough on Osama" but not get us into irresponsible wars for profit.

Look, Obama ran a damn good campaign, but was not running as a socialist or Bush 2.0. That is not why he won. He was very cunning, and chose the right words for people to think he was an agent of reasonable change. A big part of why he won is because he seemed like a sensible alternative to the neocons who seemed eager to start WW3, and a Bush economy trending towards disaster.

[Danke]

I doubt that the self-identified libertarians who voted for Obama over Barr and Baldwin would have voted for whatever "real liberty candidate" we might have given them instead of those two.



Even if one did not particularly like Barr and Baldwin, voting for one of them would have helped those parties getting on the ballots in the future.

[BrendenR]

I think it's the result of a 'lesser of two evils' mindset.

If you had put a gun to my head on election day and said VOTE R or D! I would have pushed the button for Obama and I would not have regretted it.

But I voted for Barr, just to make a statement. More to people close to me, than to anyone else. "Yes, I voted for Barr, and here is why." etc. etc.

[Stary Hickory]

Obama ran on a much more libertarian platform than McCain. He promised to undo alot of the civil liberites violations of the Bush admionstration, as well as close Gitmo, and end the war in iraq.

On economics, he ran as a moderate. He criticised Hillary for bringing up mandated government health insurance, and promised to not raise taxes.

Obama sounded good because he lied.

Maybe so, for the first part of the campaign I was leaning Obama. I was not going to vote for him but I did not care. Towards the end however some stuff came out that made me worry. I did not want to believe a lot of it. But it turned out it was really true and those people were not crazy.

Had I to do it over again I would have vehemently opposed Obama from start to finish.

[BrendenR]

Maybe so, for the first part of the campaign I was leaning Obama. I was not going to vote for him but I did not care. Towards the end however some stuff came out that made me worry. I did not want to believe a lot of it. But it turned out it was really true and those people were not crazy.

Had I to do it over again I would have vehemently opposed Obama from start to finish.

Well, you say that knowing what Obama has really done, but not what McCain would have really done.

Who knows whether McCain would have 'fucked shit up' even more.

[Travlyr]

Uhh, that's a good idea, and necessary for the free flow of interstate commerce.
Which is your favorite part?

That the bankers circumvented local and state laws for years for easier profits?
That the Republican and Democrat Senators voted unanimously in favor of the bankers to save their asses?
That there was no public debate?

[Rancher]

Damn Democrats. The Republicans will free us from the tyrants.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/vance/vance210.html


"Oh, the "Pledge to America" talks about Republican plans to "advance policies that promote greater liberty" and about how their plan "stands on the principles of smaller, more accountable government," but then the Republicans propose, not to cease funding any of the above mentioned programs, agencies, and policies, but – are you ready – "to roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels." My, what an ambitious plan to promote liberty and limited government!"

[oyarde]

If a Liberty minded person voted for a Dem it would probably be that they are fooled that the dems care about civil liberty. That is a ruse . The Dems have been hijacked by the socialists long ago . The agenda they have is to take all monies and liberty to give to who they wish.

[Anti Federalist]

Why do some libertarians vote for Democrats?

Pffft...

Because they have no more sense of what it is to be a "libertarian" than Bill Maher does.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I ask the same questions when it comes to the opposite -- why do libertarians vote for Republicans?

There isn't one difference between either party when it comes to their actions. In fact, I would say the GOP is more hurtful than the Democrats, because at least the Democrats don't proclaim to be advocates of the 'free-market'. Republicans wouldn't know a free-market if it bit them in the face.