The true names of the Republicans and the Democrats

I've often thought that neither the Republicans nor the Democrats live up to the names of their parties.  The Republicans are more in favor of res privata than res publica and the Democrats may often make noises of being the party of the people (demōs) but often bow to corporate interests.

I've often thought of the Republicans as the Republicants or the Republiwonts because they are often such nay-sayers to anything the Democrats may propose.  Then a few years ago I noticed the all the Republicans seemed to be all in lockstep on a laundry list of issues.  They must be anti-abortion, pro-war, lower and lower taxes, climate change deniers, America firsters, anti environment protection, anti safety rules, anti-labor unions, and pro-pro-pro business.  They all must bash the public schools and their "greedy teacher unions".  They all must decry run-away spending without being specific about what really should be cut, except for the military that they think needs more money without limit.  They all must decry deficits without considering that running a deficit may be because of investments that will pay off in the future.  They must decry subsidies for alternate energy but must demand subsidies for sports stadiums.

Then I heard about ALEC, the American Legislative Exchange Council run by the Koch brothers and others.  Ah, so, the Republicans are not a bunch of politicians with similar ideas who may disagree on some points.  They have almost all become beholden to ALEC and its ideology.  They have become puppets of and parrots for a small plutocracy.  So, their true party name is Repuppetans or Reparrotans.  We could also call them Reprivateers, because they put the private interests of a few far over public interests.

The Democrats at least make some effort to put public interests above private interests.  Of course, it's hard to do so when the private interests provide so much larger campaign contributions than the general public does.  They also lack the energy of a Teddy Roosevelt, a Franklin Roosevelt or a Harry Truman who were willing to face down large corporate interests in favor of the public interest.  I wonder if modern Democrats should be called Democravens or Democave-ins.  From reports I've had of the October 2, 2012 debates, these could be very apt names.

Alarmist liberals and alarming conservatives

So-called liberals often cry wolf or throw statistics around with scant analysis, all to support their perception of people in need of the "liberals'" political assistance.

So-called conservatives often are willing to throw facts out the window, to stage events, and to edit liberally(?) to put organizations that they don't like in a bad light.  See "At Advocates' Offices, Confronting an Anti-Liberal Scheme", Michael Power, New York Times, 2012-04-02.

Whatever happened to the "virtue" written about so liberally in the Federalist Papers?  Whatever happened to promoting the public good rather than private interest?  Whatever happened to reasoned argument based on fact and acceptance of different views?  Our political system has been debased to a war where the other side is always, absolutely wrong.  At least this war is being fought with words rather than swords and with bucks rather than bombs.  If you look around the world, we probably should be thankful for this little "boon".