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 11 hours 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 BraIl 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.
Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world 8 hours ago
I’m registering as Bull Moose.
blarghly@lemmy.world 10 hours ago
TR '28!
zloubida@sh.itjust.works 7 hours ago
And sometimes is even contradictory. The Danish Left party is right-wing (agrarian conservative), the French Radicals are centrists. These names have historic causes, but it’s still confusing.
Jimmycrackcrack@lemmy.ml 5 hours ago
In Australia our establishment conservative party is called the Liberal party. I understand why and how it actually made perfect sense at the time but man if that isn’t ever ironic in modern context.