Republicans versus Democrats: Not a Dime's Bit of Difference?
I have always thought that there's not much difference between Republicans and Democrats--their rhetoric may speak to vast policy differences, but the reality of their actions belies that rhetoric. In the latter part of my principles of microeconomics course we examine a theory, called the median voter model, that attempts to explain why political parties (or candidates) tend to appear as clones of each other.
This was all stirred up in my mind when I read Andrew Sullivan's impression of George Bush's agenda:
My thanks to the folks at Marginal Revolution for the heads up....conservatism as we have known it is now over. People like me who became conservatives because of the appeal of smaller government and more domestic freedom are now marginalized in a big-government party, bent on using the power of the state to direct people's lives, give them meaning and protect them from all dangers. Just remember all that Bush promised last night: an astonishingly expensive bid to spend much more money to help people in ways that conservatives once abjured. He pledged to provide record levels of education funding, colleges and healthcare centers in poor towns, more Pell grants, seven million more affordable homes, expensive new HSAs, and a phenomenally expensive bid to reform the social security system. I look forward to someone adding it all up, but it's easily in the trillions. And Bush's astonishing achievement is to make the case for all this new spending, at a time of chronic debt (created in large part by his profligate party), while pegging his opponent as the "tax-and-spend" candidate. The chutzpah is amazing. At this point, however, it isn't just chutzpah. It's deception. To propose all this knowing full well that we cannot even begin to afford it is irresponsible in the deepest degree. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the only difference between Republicans and Democrats now is that the Bush Republicans believe in Big Insolvent Government and the Kerry Democrats believe in Big Solvent Government. By any measure, that makes Kerry - especially as he has endorsed the critical pay-as-you-go rule on domestic spending - easily the choice for fiscal conservatives. It was also jaw-dropping to hear this president speak about tax reform. Bush? He has done more to lard up the tax code with special breaks and new loopholes than any recent president. On this issue - on which I couldn't agree more - I have to say I don't believe him. Tax reform goes against the grain of everything this president has done so far. Why would he change now?
8 comments:
I have to agree with this article in that there isn't much difference in Republicans and Democrats anymore. Especially in the way they insult members of the other party. I feel that sometimes the general public gets excited by a politician's promise of healthcare for everyone or increased spending on education and they forget where the money for those promises will come from. Certainly not the politician's pockets. John Kerry has the right idea when he states the government will pay as they go. Some reallocation of funds needs to take place if our economy is to improve. Tax breaks for the wealthy only make things worse. The theory is that they will reinvest their money into the economy, however, many give into greed and keep the money for themselves. A pay as you go system is not only good for our economy but many individuals could learn a lot from that policy as well.
The more I get involved with this presidential election, the more I realize: There really is no difference between parties. Yes, each party represents its own beliefs and takes a certain side in debates, but that does not make them completely different from other parties. Each party has ideals they think are perfect and therefore all other parties are wrong. I hate the attacks each party makes on the others. If your point is "the right one" then that should be apparent in itself and you should not need to tear anyone else down. People lose credibility when they attack others instead of proving why their point is the best choice, at least from my viewpoint.
When this debate between Bush and Kerry first started, I was worried that there would be a strong line drawn - Republicans would vote for Bush, and Democrats would vote for Kerry. Basically, I did not see it as a debate between two people, but rather a debate between political parties. Even though that is generally what happens, it saddens me because I want people to chose based on agreeing with a candidate, not just associating with his/her political party. It also saddens me that a lot of political decisions are being based on not liking the current president, rather than caring strongly for something another candidate is saying, even though I am doing the exact same thing. Generally, I view myself as an Independent, but my choice to vote Democrat in this up-coming elelction is based on my dislike of Bush.
Apart from which candidate I side with, I am beginning to realize more and more that this election is not so clear cut. Self-labeled Republicans are voting for Kerry and I am sure that means self-labeled Democrats are voting for Bush. This has especially been a huge debate among my family, who is basically Republican and Pro-Bush. Recently my cousin, who is Republican, sent out a couple articles, one of which I have included below, that state why she is voting for Kerry despite her usual political alliance. I hope others can forget their political alliances as well and vote for the candidate they believe will do the best job, not just the one associated with their party.
**********
Why I will vote for John Kerry for President
By JOHN EISENHOWER
http://www.johnkerry.com/communities/faith/
The Presidential election to be held this coming Nov. 2 will be one of extraordinary importance to the future of our nation. The outcome will determine whether this country will continue on the same path it has followed for the last 3½ years or whether it will return to a set of core domestic and foreign policy values that have been at the heart of what has made this country great.
Now more than ever, we voters will have to make cool judgments, unencumbered by habits of the past. Experts tell us that we tend to vote as our parents did or as we “always have.” We remained loyal to party labels. We cannot afford that luxury in the election of 2004. There are times when we must break with the past, and I believe this is one of them.
As son of a Republican President, Dwight D. Eisenhower, it is automatically expected by many that I am a Republican. For 50 years, through the election of 2000, I was. With the current administration’s decision to invade Iraq unilaterally, however, I changed my voter registration to independent, and barring some utterly unforeseen development, I intend to vote for the Democratic Presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry.
The fact is that today’s “Republican” Party is one with which I am totally unfamiliar. To me, the word “Republican” has always been synonymous with the word “responsibility,” which has meant limiting our governmental obligations to those we can afford in human and financial terms. Today’s whopping budget deficit of some $440 billion does not meet that criterion.
Responsibility used to be observed in foreign affairs. That has meant respect for others. America, though recognized as the leader of the community of nations, has always acted as a part of it, not as a maverick separate from that community and at times insulting towards it. Leadership involves setting a direction and building consensus, not viewing other countries as practically devoid of significance. Recent developments indicate that the current Republican Party leadership has confused confident leadership with hubris and arrogance.
In the Middle East crisis of 1991, President George H.W. Bush marshaled world opinion through the United Nations before employing military force to free Kuwait from Saddam Hussein. Through negotiation he arranged for the action to be financed by all the industrialized nations, not just the United States. When Kuwait had been freed, President George H. W. Bush stayed within the United Nations mandate, aware of the dangers of occupying an entire nation.
Today many people are rightly concerned about our precious individual freedoms, our privacy, the basis of our democracy. Of course we must fight terrorism, but have we irresponsibly gone overboard in doing so? I wonder. In 1960, President Eisenhower told the Republican convention, “If ever we put any other value above (our) liberty, and above principle, we shall lose both.” I would appreciate hearing such warnings from the Republican Party of today.
The Republican Party I used to know placed heavy emphasis on fiscal responsibility, which included balancing the budget whenever the state of the economy allowed it to do so. The Eisenhower administration accomplished that difficult task three times during its eight years in office. It did not attain that remarkable achievement by cutting taxes for the rich. Republicans disliked taxes, of course, but the party accepted them as a necessary means of keep the nation’s financial structure sound.
The Republicans used to be deeply concerned for the middle class and small business. Today’s Republican leadership, while not solely accountable for the loss of American jobs, encourages it with its tax code and heads us in the direction of a society of very rich and very poor.
Sen. Kerry, in whom I am willing to place my trust, has demonstrated that he is courageous, sober, competent, and concerned with fighting the dangers associated with the widening socio-economic gap in this country. I will vote for him enthusiastically.
I celebrate, along with other Americans, the diversity of opinion in this country. But let it be based on careful thought. I urge everyone, Republicans and Democrats alike, to avoid voting for a ticket merely because it carries the label of the party of one’s parents or of our own ingrained habits.
**********
There is also a website dedicated to Republicans voting for Kerry: http://www.republicansforkerry.org.
Everyone tells me it is a privilege to vote now but look at the first presidential election i get to vote in. This election is between two men that banter back and forth as children and talk about things they want to do or are going to do but will never happen. Spending money is a problem of this countries government. When you rack up a deficit as big as the US does it is amazing we still have money to buy lunch. We spend more money on things outside of this country when we really need to start focusing on us instead of everyone else. Both candidates talk about education and tax breaks and so on but everytime we read a newspaper they are saying something different. They want to spend money but it will take them years before they come around to do doing what they say they will. I think that the candidates should take a lesson in econ because they think money grows on trees, they throw numbers around and sometimes i don't think they comprehend the numbers they talk about. Our taxes go to other countries instead of our own, it makes me feel better knowing i get payed under the table.
Will Sullivan
I don't know about the rest of you, but I am ready for this election season to be over! Regarding the difference between liberals and conservatives... I consider myself a conservative and hadn't second guessed this until this past weekend when I was talking with my Grandmother (who, herself, is a strong conservative) when she called me her 'liberal grandaughter'. Maybe the difference between the two ideas is shrinking over the generations, so what is going to happen? The two parties already rip each other apart and bicker like no other...are we goign to start tearing people apart that truely believe in the same things that we do just because they are of a different party? Only time will tell, but I hope that this country can fade away from the constant abuse of our fellow countrymen and respect one another.
Post a Comment