The “democrats” (as in democracy) and “republican” (as in a republic) are not very descriptive identifiers for a democratic party in a republic (though I guess you could argue a two-party system isn’t very democratic).

In many other countries, parties are labelled as “Progressive”, “Conservative”, “Socialist”, “Christian Democratic”, “Social Democratic”, etc. that give you some idea of what they stand for / believe in, albeit in some cases, they can be misnomers and be things they want you to think they believe in (e.g. the various “democratic” parties in one-party states). Why are the American parties so boringly named with such broad descriptors?

p.s. Whatever happened to the Bull Moose party?

  • kersploosh@sh.itjust.works
    21·
    11 days ago

    I thought party names were sometimes unintuitive in other countries as well? From the names alone I couldn’t tell you what the Whigs or Tories stood for in the UK, or the Brazil of Hope Federation today, or the old Arrow Cross party in Hungary. It’s usually some mix of historical oddities and domestic marketing.

    We could use a new Bull Moose party. It’s almost hard to imagine a platform like that winning today.

    The party’s platform built on Roosevelt’s Square Deal domestic program and called for several progressive reforms, asserting that “to dissolve the unholy alliance between corrupt business and corrupt politics is the first task of the statesmanship of the day”. The platform included proposals such as restrictions on campaign finance contributions, a reduction of the tariff and the establishment of a social insurance system, an eight-hour workday and women’s suffrage.