From where? There are literally millions upon millions of different political views, theories, forms of government, and the like all across the world. Global politics isn't necessarily the same as American politics, but I am going to assume that you are referring to the latter, and so I will try to sum up the platforms of the two parties of America in an unbiased, non-deragotary way. The political climate of the United States can be divided into two parts: the social and the fiscal. The former relates to, well, "social" issues and matters pertaining to the culture. The big reoccurring social topics of America tend to be same-sex marriage, abortion, environmentalism, gun control, and immigration. The latter--the fiscal--relates to economics and finances, more specifically, whether we want a freer market or a more controlled one. Politics in America deal with both the social and the fiscal, and the general established pattern--for better or for worse--tends to be that you cannot hold the same view regarding both the fiscal and the social. For example, if fiscally you support a freer, more independent market, chances are you will support a stricter, more "traditional" view of social issues. The inverse also tends to be true. I'm not saying this is right or that every American falls under this dichotomy, but the general trend and platform of the parties seems to be this way. Moving on to them, Republicans tend to support a freer market economy with financial independence at the expense of a more restrictive, tighter social policy whereas Democrats tend to support a looser, more live-and-let-live social policy at the expense of a more controlled, restrictive fiscal policy. The sole exception to this trend regarding the parties tends to be gun-control. Despite their trend for a looser, more progressive social policy, Democrats ironically tend to be big supporters of tighter, more restrictive gun-control laws, whereas Republicans, despite their trend for a more restrictive, less independent social policy, tend to be big supporters of looser gun laws and firearms freedoms. Most people become Independents or join 3rd parties because they do not like this dichotomy. They do not agree with the trend that they have to be socially liberal to be fiscally liberal or vice versa. They do not agree that they have to be fiscally conservative and socially conservative. Many people consider themselves fiscally liberal but socially conservative or fiscally conservative and socially liberal and everything in between. People are moving past the established pattern. Yet there is still a long way to go. I would say some of these divisive issues that are contributing to the destruction of the established pattern are same-sex marriage and abortion. Many young Republicans who are fiscally conservative are starting to adopt a more socially liberal view--particularly regarding same-sex marriage, where they think that they should be allowed to marry and don't agree with the old fogies in their party that marriage should only be heterosexual. Many young Democrats I've seen who are fiscally liberal are starting to adopt a more socially conservative view regarding abortion--that is, they don't fully agree with their party's pro-choice platform. Overlapping, divisive issues like this which tear down established party lines are responsible for the 3rd parties and independents. As to what this means for the future, speculative politicians on both sides have been working frantically to try to determine the answer. Both of the parties tend to be very alarmist and negative toward this new, "freer-thinking" political attitude as one may describe it, because it could mean that sometime in the not too far away future, the big parties could lose their power, influence, and money as established parts of the American political climate.

Well I'm a Democratic Socialist which is when you implement a Socialist/Social Democratic political system into government along with some type of class. It's not total equality like what Marxist theory proposes; however, it's a more mild version of it. The rich pay heavy taxes while the working class are catered to the most and are given many benefits including but not limited to 1. Free healthcare 2. Free Education 3. Free/Affordable housing Due to this, Socialist countries pay a much higher percentage of tax than in a Capitalist system. This is like I've shown, balanced out with benefits and funding to different programs. There's less of a demand for excessive spending and a tighter focus on family and people. Not that socialists don't spend money on stuff, I'm just saying they're less inclined to spend money for no reason unlike in America, where people shot A LOT! ( I'm Canadian BTW so I'd vote NDP (New Democratic Party) )

To oversimplify and generalize - Damien isn't wrong in what you're going to see - Democrats believe in an activist government, Republicans do not. Democrats look to solve many problems, like poverty or lack of education, with government funding and programs. This obviously requires money, and so they are in favor of higher government spending that is supported by higher taxes. They also believe in protecting the public with regulations and mandates on business activities, such as environmental protections and minimum wage laws. Republicans see an activist government as getting in the way of a real solution that could be carried out by private citizens. Shrinking the size and role of government provides more leeway for citizens and businesses to conduct their activities, and the money that would otherwise be funding the government would instead stay in the pockets of the people. Regulations are seen as heavy-handed and intrusive into the private sector. The Democrat's critique of the Republican is that his "free market solution" doesn't guarantee distribution of money and services to the most needy people and leaves them open to predatory business practices. The Republican's critique of the Democrat is that his "safety net" ends up entangling the needy by removing their incentive to better themselves, and that bureaucratic government programs are more wasteful and fraudulent in spending taxpayer money.

Everyone is inherently biased, there is no such thing as objectivity you silly rascal you.

My view is spoiled so you don't have to complain about seeing it without the spoiler's binary consent. [spoiler]Blue wants rich to be richer and to damage local systems in turn for dealing with long term issue of having borrowed money from nowhere. Purple wants to ban everyone from everything and deconstruct everything too fast. Red wants to take the long time issue slowly, and fix the local systems to the point that they will self-improve, then focus more on long term plans. Any other colour gets insufficient votes. If you are in UK, too: Blue won, for now.[/spoiler]

It can be summed up very simply. • Republicans serve the rich. • Democrats serve the working class. • Libertarians are pretty much anarchists.