"In politics, it is not the goal that differs, but the path to that goal."
-Self
2006-10-20 03:37:10 · 13 answers · asked by Tofu Jesus 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
True. But those common goals are pretty much motherhood statements:
Peace, prosperity, good educations, affordable and available health care, jobs, safety, etc.
2006-10-20 03:51:17 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Yes it is true. The right and the left are two arms from the same body.
Voting in a new party is just a cosmetic change. The powers and money behind it remains the same.
A dictator tells you what his goal is and how you get there. A democracy implements the same goals, but invents a second route to the same outcome, so people think they've had a choice.
That's why a party in opposition always attacks the policies of the party in power, but when the opposition gets elected they never reverse the changes they opposed before. The differences are only in the presentation, not the substance.
2006-10-20 10:59:55 · answer #2 · answered by Cracker 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋
not true
republicans want the rich to get richer and not let too many of the poor and less fortunate join their ranks
democrats want the rich to pay their fair share of taxes and give all others a chance to live the american dream
single issue political agendas like the radical left's environmentalists and radical right religious fascists are so far apart in goals but many use similar paths to achieve them
politics can never be viewed in the simple terms you postulate
2006-10-20 10:51:29 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
That depends what you're defining as the goal. If it is something vague, like doing what's best for the country -then yes. But if it's something more specific, as in goals for the outcomes of specific issues, the no that statement wouldn't be accurate.
2006-10-20 10:43:02 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No, "in politics, it's not the goal that differs, but the path to the gold" LOL
2006-10-20 10:46:17 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
This, I suspect has to do with the meanderings of the administration over the debacle that is Iraq.
You could argue you statement is applicable to any strategy and or plan.
In the case of Iraq, I have to say the amateurish attempt to invade and occupy the country shouldn't be a case of chance.. I'll try this, if it doesn't work I try something else.
In war we deal with lives and the consequences are very serious indeed.
2006-10-20 10:46:49 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Only in a one party scenario where people agree on the goal.
2006-10-20 10:42:41 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think each of them are equally important. What is the goal and how to reach it are very important to any society. Is it for the great good, or will it harm the majority?
2006-10-20 10:43:23 · answer #8 · answered by breath4u 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO.
The two goals, and their paths, are as far removed as capitalism is from socialism...
2006-10-20 10:40:40 · answer #9 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In politics, the goal has been forgotten from all sides....
2006-10-20 10:38:08 · answer #10 · answered by lost&confused 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
T as far as I'm concerned. Ends never justify the means. And sometimes the ends just can't be achieved, (i.e. Iraq democracy), then you have done evil or wrong for no reason!
--Muscat, the good grape.
2006-10-20 10:39:49 · answer #11 · answered by Muscat 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋