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
Finding the agenda
Posted at: Mar/13/2014 : Posted by: mel
Related Category: Politics & Gov, Watching America,
Politics in America is an interesting beast. Throughout our brief history, our government’s legislative bodies have traditionally been dominated by two parties with a wide aisle between them. These political parties have changed over time and their agenda has evolved depending on challenges that our country has faced at any given time. The most recent manifestations of the Republican and Democratic parties have left me confused and frustrated trying to discern what their actual agenda is. I had an epiphany recently and the notion of what our national agenda appears to be scares me and should scare you. 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 dominant at any one time. When the U.S. Constitution was initially implemented, voters and elected officials were by law limited to being 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 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 Party and Wigs had run out of energy and the DR had emerged as the dominant political party in the country. The Democratic Party was formed around the new president of 1824, Andrew Jackson and had three primary planks. The first plank was the continued expansion of America. This expansion was with noted disregard for other cultures including American Indian, focusing on opening up a cheap source for large tracts of new territory. 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 encouraged 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 European 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 button issues 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 since escaping slaves would have to live “underground” to preserve their freedom. 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 vote, 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 as neither party seemed to consistently stand for anything that distinguished them from each other. The effects of the Great Depression on the American political landscape were profound and by most accounts represent the turning point where our dominant political parties began to evolve into what we now distinctly recognize and can clearly separate. During the Depression the Democratic Party moved away from its various questionable political machines of conflicting purposes to a party touted to be of the populist. In application, many of the programs and agendas of the Democratic Party of the 1930’s have been argued as semi-socialist in their agenda. Clearly the Democratic policies of that era had a focus on aid and relief during a period of record high unemployment. The Republican Party shifted its focus to limiting government and striving for policies that would support business success and those holding large amounts of capital under the belief that when businesses thrive and the wealthy invest, all of America advances. It is eighty years later and there are consistencies, and new areas of concern when trying to identify and find personal relevance with a political party. To begin associating with a political party, one must first determine what they believe is the role of government. For me, the role of government at a national level is; - ensure domestic and national security - provide an infrastructure for transportation, energy, water, food, and education - provide economic oversight to minimize abuse of those without by those who have - provide a limited and basic safety net of services for those not able to provide for themselves - oversee a court system ensuring everyone can be heard equally - maintain a currency and banking system - ensure that we can trade state-to-state and country-to-country with some degree of parity. It is by most standards a fairly broad list. So how do our two dominant political parties currently 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 with a minimum of taxes or regulation, jobs will be created. If health care is competitive, prices will be reasonable and affordable through competition to all. The Democrat seem to believe that jobs will only come through tight regulation of business to minimize profit taking at the highest levels. Democrats seem to also believe that healthcare would be best accomplished with a semi-socialized, or fully nationalized system similar to England and Canada. The best answer is probably somewhere in between which means there is value in debate and concessions between the parties to move a national agenda forward. Unfortunately, modern politics is driven by money. Since the biggest donations to the political arena come from a select few, the resulting agenda and implementation seem that much more narrowly focused. The modern Republican seems driven to eliminate all regulation and oversight effectively proclaiming that any government intervention is evil. While seeming like this is straight forward Adam Smith free market economy, it is challenged by human factors. As Adam Smith noted, in a free market, there is an incentive to work hard and allow some to achieve success and others to fail. Unfortunately, these same successful individuals can now influence the political agenda to protect their position at the expense of others having vertical mobility. Therefore, taxes are bad when they take money away from the influential and wealthy 1% despite the proven abuse this has repeatedly shown in the past (note monopolies Cir. 1910, Savings & Loan failure Cir. 1980, mortgage & banking Cir. 2007). Clearly, there will always be some who believe that holes or gaps in regulations are an opportunity to “game the system.” Contrary to expectations, the modern Democratic politician seems to be just as much of an “ideologue,” but sitting at the opposite end of a very long table. Outwardly, there is a “Robin Hood” flavor to their words. Taking from the rich to feed the poor, tax refunds that exceed taxes paid, universal healthcare all sound wonderful. No one with at least half a soul wants to see their fellow man hungry, cold or sick; but the latest iteration of Democratic leadership has taken on a flavor of “elitism.” They want to feed the hungry, but only if they go to designated place and eat the designated food. They offer them medical care, but it is again with the elitist approach that “they know what is best” and the person in need has little or no choice. I am an idealist and a political moderate at heart. The American system is at its finest when there are winners and loser. There is definitely room to have the winners help the losers a little more. There is also no incentive for innovation and hard work if the playing field is completely leveled by taking too much from the winners to aid those less successful. I am unsure which I despise more, the cronyism of the Republicans protecting their position, or superiority and elitism of the Democrats arguing that they know what is best for each individual. Unfortunately, until the lobbying, large donations and career politicians can be brought to an end, I don’t see a good solution. Clearly, special interests and their money have created a very polarized political system. Nevertheless, politics, like the roller derby of old can be fun to watch and for many of the same reasons. In the roller derby there are lots of bloody noses and flying elbows while they just go round and round on the same small track. Or maybe being a fossil means I expect too much from my government.
Comments (0) [Add Comment]
