共和党与民主党有着天壤之别，它们的冲突也是美国社会的主要矛盾，它们的区别到底是什么？为什么如此的巨大（中英文版）

English wiki introduces the Republican Party in this way. “the Republican Party was aligned with Christian conservatism.[27] The party’s core support since the 1990s comes chiefly from the South, the Great Plains, the Mountain States, and rural areas in the North.[28][29] The 21st century Republican Party ideology is American conservatism。”
Suppose we continue to open the wiki explanation of “American conservatism”. we can find that “American conservatism is a broad system of political beliefs in the United States that is characterized by respect for American traditions, republicanism, support for Judeo-Christian values,[1] moral universalism,[2] business[3], anti-communism,[4][5] individualism,[4] advocacy of American exceptionalism,[6] and a defense of Western culture from the perceived threats posed by socialism, authoritarianism, and moral relativism。”
Here is a brief explanation. The phrase Judeo Christian values refer to the values of Judaism and Christianity, that is, the Old Testament and New Testament values. After such an explanation, the difference between the Democratic Party and the Republican Party is quite clear, and the root cause of their conflict is known.
In “the course of western civilization(essence version)”“buy the book”, I also repeatedly stressed that the history of the United States is a history of the gradual secularization of a Christian society. The United States has gradually become secularized from the original Protestant society at the time of the founding of the country to the present-day society. Christians coexist with various secular forces, such as atheism, scientific theology, paganism, and other non-Christians. Christianity and these secular forces are fiercely competing for social dominance. We also know that radical and conservative ideas mostly distinguish the left and the right. The left is radical, and the right is conservative. Therefore, most of the left thinkers and politicians in the United States are non-Christians. They play an important role in the process of social secularization. They deconstruct and eliminate Christian beliefs and culture, try to replace religious beliefs with rationality, and completely replace the role of the Christian church with a secular government. We can see that the Democrats are mainly composed of non-Christians, atheists, and pagans in today’s American society. Therefore, the Democrats are mostly leftists, and the intersection of the two is very large. The Republican party belongs to the conservative, which represents the traditional Christian forces. They recognize the Christian values, require the society to strictly abide by the principle of separation of church and state, safeguard the role of the Christian Church in society, and condemn the infringement of the secular government on the church. Therefore, most of the Republicans are Christians, and most of them are rightists. We can see that these explanations are consistent with the current situation in American society. I have made clear proof in many former articles. And Wikipedia has also provided accurate data to prove it.

Let’s take a look at a Wikipedia introduction to Republicans,” 61% of voters who go to church every week voted for George W. Bush in the 2004 presidential election. 47% of those who occasionally attend church voted for George W. Bush, while only 37% of voters who have never been to church voted for George W. Bush, 59% of Protestants voted for George W. Bush, and 52% of Catholics voted for him. Since 1980, the vast majority of EvangelicalsCatholics voted for the Republican Party in various elections. In the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections, 70-80% of them voted for George W. Bush. In the 2006 mid-term elections, 70% of them voted for the Republican Party, and the rate of Jewish support for the Republican Party was also as high as 70-80%（“Voters who attend church weekly gave 61% of their votes to Bush in 2004, and those who attend occasionally gave him only 47% while those who never attend gave him 36%. Fifty-nine percent of Protestants voted for Bush, along with 52% of Catholics (even though John Kerry was Catholic). Since 1980, a large majority of evangelicals have voted Republican; 70–80% voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004, and 70% for Republican House candidates in 2006. Jews continue to vote 70–80%。”）
At the same time, the two articles by leftist thinkers I mentioned in the former article also think that most evangelicals support President Trump, corroborating my view. Due to space constraints, I simply extract the two paragraphs of the two leftist thinkers’ articles. There are many such discussions. Whenever you take the heart to it, you can find similar articles whenever and wherever possible.
“Liberals should have strongly supported President Donald Trump. He has three wives, and many of his actions are not as a Christian or even fail to meet the minimum code of conduct of Christians claimed by white evangelicals. However, the support of white evangelicals for Donald Trump is still as high as 73%, and more than 80% of white evangelical voters voted for him in the 2016 general election。”
“All this mocks the supporting morals and family of white evangelicals. Moral issues once pushed white evangelicals to vote. When Obama was elected president and then the Supreme Court overturned the ban on same-sex marriage in June 2015, their fear existed for a long time. Trump promised to appoint conservative justices and return to an era when they thought they were less fearful, at least, as before. It can be imagined that the white evangelicals are firm in Trump’s loyalty. In America, Evangelicalism is not just a religious group; they are a political group closely linked to the Republican Party.
“Trump has saved evangelicals from the shame of failure, and they will support him again in 2020 to avoid failure again. Therefore, maybe we should know evangelicals in this way, that is, they will always support Trump, whether in hell or when the water overflows over their heads, rather than admitting the shortcomings of evangelicals and trying to find out the reasons and correct them.”
Of course, I emphasize here that no sociological inductive analysis can be as accurate and rigorous as mathematics. Therefore, most Republicans are Christians, and Democrats are non-Christians. It is not an absolute but a general and universal concept, with many exceptions.

At the same time, in this book, “the course of western civilization(essence version)”“buy the book” I have also repeatedly discussed that religious belief is the most fundamental matter in western society. It determines the history of Western society, even today’s American society, which is gradually secularized. The Republican Party hopes to return to the embrace of Christianity, while the Democratic Party wants to leave Christianity and come to a strange future society, so the Republican Party and the Democratic party are fighting fiercely, neither giving way to the other .after this further elaboration, we not only understand the difference between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party but also clearly understand the internal contradictions of American society and the essence of American society.
We can see that the disputes between the two parties over some key issues revolve around Christian doctrines, such as conservative and freedom, back and leave. The two sides fight tooth and nail for every inch of land. There is no room for compromise between the two parties regarding religious beliefs. To explain this point in more detail, let’s take a closer look at how the two-party competition is based on Christian doctrine on some focal issues.

Abortion and anti-abortion are the focus of the conflict between the two parties. Some time ago, the Democratic Party tried to block the appointment of Justice Kavanaugh because of his conservative stance on abortion. Christianity has always advocated that the image of man is modeled on God, and life is created by him. Therefore, people with the creator’s image are sacred and glorious, and as Christians, they can not tolerate any blasphemy to life; the most important thing is to protect the life given by God. They have also advocated the preservation of life and opposed suicide. There are many records in the Bible that fetuses are spiritual. Christians believe that fetuses, early embryos, and even fertilized eggs have life, so they think we can not get an abortion at our pleasure. They see abortion as infanticide, which is an act of killing life. Democrats understand the issue from a rational view, from protecting the rights and interests of mothers and women. Democrats believe they have the right to consider the problems from their health, social pressure, and other aspects comprehensively. They have the right to decide the fate of the fetus, give birth, or have an abortion. Of course, an essential basis for their view is that scientific research believes that the fertilized egg has no heart, brain, or consciousness. Can it be called life? From the dispute between abortion and anti-abortion, we can clearly see that the Bible is involved. For non-Christians such as the Democrats, the Bible is only an ancient myth and legend. How can it be used as a criterion for life or even as a basis for prohibiting abortion? For Christians, the Bible is a covenant between God and humans, which humans must abide by. Since the Bible says that the fetus is spiritual, that is, a life, how can abortion and infanticide be possible? We can imagine the great difference between the two sides’ understanding of the Bible and the fierce conflict on abortion. Of course, some Republican position on abortion is too harsh. For example, the anti-abortion bill passed by Alabama last year believes that abortion is not allowed as long as the fertilized egg is generated, even under exceptional circumstances such as rape, which has aroused great controversy.

On the issue of same-sex marriage, the conflict between the two is also due to the Bible, and it is more obvious that same-sex marriage is not a problem from the perspective of atheism and rationality. If two same-sex people want to pervert and get married, it seems not to harm others. Why not let them get married? But the problem is that same-sex marriage is in serious conflict with the Bible’s content, which is clearly regarded as a sin in the Bible. In addition, the Bible believes that marriage is an incomparably pure and sacred union between a man and a woman, which makes homosexual marriage involved in the vortex of religion and become extremely complex and sensitive. Although I never dare to call myself a Christian, I accord with my research on human religion, philosophy, and history; I always believe that the Bible is the most human work best reflects the essence of human society. It is the moral standards that humans should follow. Human society will collapse without the Bible. Why do I say so? The purpose of the Bible is brotherly love. I think this is the essence of human society and the only way to alleviate the suffering of the human soul. On this basis, many moral codes in the Bible are the most reasonable moral standards, such as monogamy, which ensures the happiness of every family and the harmony and stability of society. If homosexuality is considered appropriate and humans leave the standard of the Bible, isn’t it also reasonable for other behaviors opposed by the Bible? Such as incest, group sex, bestiality, polygamy, polyandry, and so on. These behaviors cannot be refuted rationally. For example, if someone exercises incest or bestiality, is it none of your business? What power do you have to stop them? In addition, some behaviors have been observed by other societies for a long time; the most obvious is polygamy. Polygamy has been in ancient China for thousands of years. Everyone has always believed that this is reasonable behavior. Only after Christianity was introduced into China was it considered foolish and backward. But if polygamy is allowed to exist properly, will human society collapse? And homosexuality involves too many ethical issues, such as surrogate pregnancy, AIDS, the abnormal growth of children adopted by homosexuals, and so on. So you have to admit the greatness of the Bible, which reflects the most natural and essential nature of human society. There are still many such examples. I can’t explain it clearly in a few words, and there are detailed discussions in this book, “the course of western civilization(essence version)”“buy the book”. If you want to understand it fully, I hope you read the book. Here, we can only briefly discuss these. However, we can see why the conflict between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party on homosexuality is so fierce because it involves the Christian faith and the Bible. For most Christian Republicans, this is a matter of principle。

The cause of the conflict over guns is also the Bible. The American ancestor, Puritans, is the strongest supporter of Calvin’s doctrine. Calvin has successfully deduced the basic rights Christians should have from the ten commandments of the Bible, and owning guns to protect their lives is the most basic and important one. Calvin deduced in this way that the sixth of the Ten Commandments is “thou shalt not kill”.on the other hand, It means Christians have the natural right to protect themselves from being killed by others, that is, the right to hold a gun. Calvin also believes that human nature is greedy and degenerate and may corrupt at any time, and the government is composed of people. Therefore, the essence of the government is also evil and may infringe on personal rights at any time. So Christians naturally believe they have a right to own guns to resist government tyranny. So the Republicans think that Gun-rights connect with the Bible’s ten commandments, are dignity and honor of a Christian, and a safeguard for freedom and equality. Therefore, it is an inalienable right for them. So Trump often mentioned that gun is the inalienable right given by God in his speech. But The Democratic party argues this problem from a realistic view. Guns lead to frequent School shootings and bring chaos and disaster to society. They hope to strictly control guns like Japan and form a peaceful and harmonious society. From there, we can also see that the right to hold guns involves the Ten Commandments in the Bible, which Christians must abide by. Can you imagine how difficult it is to deprive people of the right to hold guns in American society?

The social governance model is also related to the Bible. The Democratic Party is compatible with its trend of secularization and hopes to replace the Christian church with a secular government. They believe that the government should manage everything and do everything. The government should provide employment opportunities and all kinds of benefits such as universal medical insurance, free education, and even food stamps; the government should cover everything from birth to the grave. This kind of welfare society is a big government model similar to many countries in continental Europe. The Republicans believe that this big government model does not exist in the Bible and contrasts with the teachings of the Bible. They want to return to the traditional Christian society, a fully autonomous society. They believe that people are divided by whether pious or not, and pious people are responsible for themselves; according to the teachings of the Bible, exert all efforts, work more and gain more, and get what you want through diligent work. However, those who are not pious breach the teachings of the Bible, are gluttonous and lazy, prodigal, and eat their head off, no matter how huge fortune will be used up. Therefore, the Republican party opposes the big government model of handling and controlling everything and pursues the small government as small as possible.
Moreover, the two completely different social governance models, small government and big government, are directly in contact with the Tenth Commandment of the Bible. “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his manservant, or his maidservant, or his ox, or his ass, or anything that is your neighbor’s.” that is, we should respect others’ property. In turn, others should also respect our property rights. Generally speaking, personal property is sacred and inviolable. Therefore, the government can’t arbitrarily raise taxes and deprive personal property, which is directly related to the Christian faith and Bible scriptures, so the debate between Republicans and Democrats on the government model is very fierce.

Regarding the social governance model, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have a dispute between small government and big government, so the two parties are also different in terms of universal health insurance, taxation, and many other policies related to government rights. The Democrats want the government to provide high coverage and generous medical insurance as much as possible. While the Republicans tend to live on their own for the medical insurance and pay according to their own ability and needs, they don’t want others to bear it. They think letting others pay for their medical insurance would prick their conscience. Similarly, they don’t want to bear others’ insurance expenses. They think it’s really resentful and unacceptable to support some lazy people with their hard work.
In terms of tax policy, Republicans tend to reduce taxes, enrich the people, oppose the high-level tax policy, and hope everyone pays taxes equally. In contrast, Democrats tend to pay high taxes, especially the rich should pay more taxes, and the government should control many taxes and unify their use, using them uniformly. These obviously involve the sanctity of private property and The Ten Commandments of the Bible, that is, “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor’s.”, Republicans think that the government has not the right to force them to pay high taxes to raise these bureaucrats and lazy people. The property they accumulate through hard work is sacred and inviolable; even the government has no reason to take it away through taxes. They say,” Bill Gates has a fortune of hundreds of billions of dollars through legal business. I don’t envy him at all.On the contrary, I hope to protect him because it also gives me a dream to get hundreds of billions of dollars through legal efforts. Otherwise, I don’t have an opportunity to dream. ”This is also the basis of the American dream. If there is no dream, how can there be reality? However, I emphasize here that the American dream is realized through our legal management, intelligence, invention, and creation, not through collusion between officials and business people. In essence, these are two kinds. I won’t elaborate here.