DoomYoshi wrote:googled "repocrat problem" and nothing came up... enlightening please, tgd?
It is a term coined by our own Andy Dufresne and generally made popular on CC by Saxi (who has a different term for the joining of the two parties). It has come up a number of times in this forum (if you search for "Repocrat" you'll find some interesting discussions). I think most recently I brought it up when I asked some people to name five differences between President Obama and Mitt Romney during the last election cycle.
Essentially, the theory is that the Republican Party and Democratic Party are not fundamentally different, with some specific and virtually irrelevant exceptions (like their stances on abortion). I'm referring almost enitrely to poliicians when I make these statements. If you take an unbiased look at the policies of President George W. Bush, you will see that he authorized the spending of a lot of money, prosecuted multiple foreign wars, generally infringed upon the rights of Americans, and created tax and spending benefits for his major campaign donors and supporters. Similarly, if you take an unbiased look at the policies of President Barack Obama, you will see that he authorized the spending of a lot of money, prosecutes mutliple foreign conflits, generally infringes upon the rights of Americans, and created tax and spending benefits for his major campaign donors and supporters.
This phenomenon doesn't just exist with the presidents, it also exists with most national party politicians. There are a number of other issues associated with our Repocrat system, including the limited existence of third parties, the Repocrat influence over the media, the ability to engage in effective political debate when the two parties essentially agree, etc.
If you think about it another way, go read Greecpwns' Greek politics/finance thread. There are, I think, six different political parties in Greece.
