Important Note:
Opinions are fun. My friends tell me I am someone with lots of opinions and that's fine since I don't get mad at others when they disagree with me. In this same spirit I am interested in hearing yours views as long as you are able to share your views without boiling over. I look forward to hearing from you. I tend to write in the form of short essays most of the time, but contributions do not need to be in this same format or size. Some of the content here will date itself pretty quickly, other content may be virtually timeless, this is for the reader to judge.
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1
Democrat verses Republican?
Posted at: May/23/2009 : Posted by: mel
Related Category: Watching America,
Democrat verses Republican; how’s that for a question. I bring this up because I am getting frustrated with determining where my personal value and expectations best fit with respect to any one political party. In my arrogance I like to think I am a pretty average American, so it is very likely that others are in truth facing this same dilemma. I guess a little history is in order to bring some foundation to this discussion. Our democratic form of government supports multiple political parties. There is no limit on the number of parties though we have historically had two parties be dominate at any one time. After the U.S. Constitution came into effect the voters and elected officials were by law property-owning white men in most states. These men were primarily divided into two parties; The Federalist party favored a strong national government ruled by a wealthy elite (coincidentally themselves). The Democratic - Republican Party (DR) favored dispersing power more broadly among white male property owners. By the 1820’s the Federalist had run out of energy and the DR was the dominate political party in the country. The Democratic Party was formed around the new president of 1824, Andrew Jackson and had 3 primary planks. The first plank was the continued taking of American Indian lands with disregard for whatever degree of genocide was necessary which made land cheap and available. The second plank was the continued support of slavery which made life profitable for Jackson and his followers. The third plank was called the “expansionary monetary policy” which encourage white settlers to borrow money to buy Indian land and work it whether as a family farm or with slaves to bring profitable crops to market. The real triumph of the Democratic Party was its ousting of “elitism” from government. On the good side these pro-land and pro-farming policies fueled the expansion of America and created endless opportunity for immigrants. On the bad side, not everyone could afford to buy or borrow to acquire land so to some extent this put land out of the reach of many. Additionally, we could discuss for a long time the cost history tells us these policies took on the native population. The Republican Party was formed in the early 1850’s by anti-slavery activist and individuals who believed that government should “grant” western lands to settlers free of charge. The name “Republican” was chosen because it alluded to Thomas Jefferson and his Democratic - Republican Party. Slavery became the touch stone of distinguishing the two major parties of the 1850’s. One of the hot buttons of the day was the Supreme Court decision called “Dred Scott”. The Democrat dominated court in 1857 issued the decision which stated that a slave entering a state in which slavery was banned remained a slave. This was not a change to the laws, but it implied that states had no right to declare slavery illegal in their own boundaries; slavery would therefore be governed by federal law and this effectively made all states slave states. Slavery divided the country and helped bring Abraham Lincoln to office as the first Republican to win the white house. It should be noted that Lincoln did not actually win the popular voted, but the Electoral College system gave him his decisive victory. The debate over what if anything that the American Civil War solved is fodder for a separate discussion. The lines between the Republicans and Democrats of the post Civil War era to the Depression of the 1930’s are very blurry in my mind as neither party seemed to consistently stand for anything that distinguished them from each other. The effect of the Great Depression on the American political landscape were profound and by most accounts represents the turning point where our dominate political parties began to evolve into what we now distinctly recognize. The Democratic Party moved away from its various questionable political machines to a party of the populist, at times even semi-socialist by some accounts. The Republican Party developed its focus on limiting government and fostering growth by helping business. It is eighty years later and there are consistencies, and new areas of concern. The purpose of a government is in my view the following (in no particular order); - ensure domestic and national security - provide an infrastructure for transportation, energy, water, food, and education - provide economic oversight to a level where one is not abused by another - provide a limited and basic safety net of services for those not able to provide for themselves - oversee a court system that allows every individual their day to be heard - maintain a currency and banking system - ensure that we can trade state-to-state and country-to-country with some degree of parity As long as any of these things are not firing perfectly, they should be the focus of our elected officials. I bet you will tell me that my list is missing something, and that is probably true. So where do our two dominate political parties fit into this list? I feel strongly that both parties would agree to my list, but distinguish themselves with respect to implementation. The Republican would believe that if business is allowed to grow, jobs will be created. If health care is competitive, prices will be reasonable and affordable through competition to all. The Democrat would believe that jobs come from stimulating business and growing government. Healthcare would be best accomplished with a semi-socialized system under the supervision of the government. The answer is probably somewhere in between which means that debate between the parties would ultimately create a viable result. So now we are back to the present and my concerns. Earlier I listed what I felt was the business of government. These are the things that I want and expect to see the political parties and my government focus on and do more about. Where I find concern is the other realms that political parties have moved in during the last couple of decades. Some of these areas are morals, and social values. Creating major national debate or selecting judges based on their view on abortion is wrong. Legislating good science to protect stem-cells is a waste of government. Letting religious organization fund candidates blurs the separation of church and state and is inappropriate. And then we have all the debate on the “gay lifestyle” and “gay marriage”. Debating “talk radio” with the so called “fairness doctrine” should not be the business of congress. Is there really a need for congress to be determining limits of applicable health care choices when doctors are not part of the debate? This list could go on and on. Our country and our planet are facing serious challenges and debating these issues is focusing on the wrong target and pandering to special interest money. We have plenty of issues from my list that the parties can and should attack while still distinguishing themselves from each other. I don’t doubt the need for discussion on moral on social issues, but this is not the purpose of our elected officials. I have been a registered Republican for over 30 years. I consider myself to be a fiscal conservative and a social moderate. I believe that Government should be as small as reasonably possible. Business should be allowed and encouraged to grow, but with some government oversight to limit the possibility of abuse. It is also my belief that all of us should to some degree be helping those among us who are currently less fortunate. To me, my values seem very main stream and similar to many of the people I know. Maybe I don’t know enough people because these goals and values of mine that I perceive as being very sensible are not directly aligned with any of our major political parties. Unfortunately, the extremism of our two major parties actually leaves me better aligned with the independent party. Debate is good, but I am gravely concerned that our dominate political parties are spending too much time and energy debating an agenda that does not serve the primary role of government and their jobs. Whether this is the result of special interest money driving the parties to extremes, the parties choosing not to attack the big issues to avoid the risk of failure, or me being out of touch is not clear to me. As I think I have shown, the flavor and agenda of our political parties has shifted over time. Some might even argue that the agenda of our two major political parties has flip-flopped over the last 150 years. All things are possible and after 80 years we may also be on the verge of a major realignment of agenda for our country and its political parties. It could also be that I am just becoming a fossil with dated views.
Comments (0) [Add Comment]
