Check post 36 for the specifics. One example is that the mentality by Democrats and Republicans in the 1980s and the 2000s in regards to the importance of compromise and the danger and/or benefits of acting ideologically are drastically and understandably different due to historical situations regarding party power.
Prior to Reagan coming in, the general status quo and expectation within government was that you would have a Congress that was Democraticly controlled. Anything other than this was an absolute anomoly. As such, for Republicans to have a chance of getting any sort of push for their ideology they had to start from a position where they were compromising or moderating their ideological beliefs from the very beginning. On the flip side, at that time, it was far safer for a Democratic congressional member to act in very ideological way as there was little fear that ideological positioning would significantly harm the party or their chance to push their ideas.
Flip to the modern time, and history since Reagan has provided a strikingly different picture from leading into the 1980s. Control of the congress is an ever shifting thing now that could swap at any time. Long held control is no longer the norm but rather an anomoly. Republicans now see that, after years of having little chance for a congressional foothold, they have a chance to actually get some time periods of power. As such, there is no longer the feeling that they must start from a compromised or moderated position of the view they hold because there's now an actual chance they could have the government structure at some point to get what they want done without compromise or moderation of it. On the flip side, Democrats have begun to moderate themselves a bit, seeking to latch a bit more onto populism in hopes of grasping control for longer periods by appearing moderate and taking a slower approach of getting their ideological things pushed (See: 2006 and winning thanks to blue dogs yet functioning solidly left in the american sense).
The increase of Republican control in congress has reduced the necessity for Republicans to start from a moderated/compromised position on issues. That's not suggesting that Republicans then were less ideologically right than those now; what it suggests was an acceptance then that they would not have a chance to fully inact their ideology so they had to take what they can get. On the flip side, the decrease in Democratic dominance of Congress has caused Democrats to attempt to appear to move more towards the center in hopes of staving off a full switch to Republican dominance.
While both wanted to reduce nuclear arms of Russia in exchange for us reducing arms, when one dives into the details of what the two different proposals did and aimed for there were differences. To suggest that they have a similar view on the issue because when looked at from a very macro view point, then we could also say that George Bush and Barack Obama have the same views on health care because both sought to reform it with further government options, or state that Dick Cheney supports gay rights more than Barack Obama.
