Republicans and Democrates: herd psychology behind success, and failure

I have noticed a trend in democratically oriented political systems.

It would seem that each side can only achieve what the other wants. For example NATO in Afghanistan, which is a pseudonym for America in Afghanistan, has increasingly been responsible for civilian deaths. Yet there has been no outcry and little media coverage of civilian carnage. For those following Afghanistan during the Bush years...well lets just say there was "robust criticism". Is this predictable hypocrisy on the part of the media and Democratic politicians OR is it that because the Democrats are perceived as inherently pacifist their war-making is seen as truly necessary -politics aside.

In other words what ever side of the aisle is perceived as naturally opposed to a given course of action is perceived as sincere when pursuing that same action.

Thus the fact that Bush expanded (both of them) government spending is overlooked but when the Democrats followed suit it becomes a major talking point of criticism, as if the national debt was an Obama creation.

There are myriad of other examples...my point is that instead of predicting hypocrisy we can start to understand the herd psychology behind success, and failure.