R or D? What is the difference?

Posted: 10/29/06 at 8:26am

We’ve had some spirited political debates recently on this board as the election approaches. Sometimes you hear the opinion expressed that there is no difference between the two parties. I think there is a huge difference and I thought I’d try to explain how I see the two parties.

The Republican Party is, on it’s surface, the party of “Less government.” Conservatives think the government that governs less governs best. Some people go so far as to say that defense and international relations is pretty much all the government should concern itself with.

Democrats think that government has a bigger role in the lives of it’s people. It can be an active force for good, helping the citizens to be healthier, better educated and happier. It believes that those citizens deserve protections, also, from government incursions into their private lives and from business interests that might exploit them.

Sometimes it’s easier to understand the differences by looking at how the two sides handle similar problems. In 1932 Franklin Roosevelt was elected president during the worst financial crisis in US history. Unemployment was rampant, the economy was stagnant and banks were failing left & right, often closing abruptly, costing depositors their entire savings. To solve the bank problem, Roosevelt stepped in and guaranteed the deposits; If you had up money in a bank and it closed, the government would give you back your money, up to $40,000. The Republicans had felt that “Interference” like this in the world of banking was beyond the scope of the federal government. Roosevelt felt that no matter what, citizens had to be protected. He also used the government to get people back to work and earning money. The government hired millions of unemployed and gave them jobs building roads, schools, bridges. He felt that the entire nation would benefit by improving the quality of life with these projects while putting money in the pockets of the previously unemployed. He also provided assistance to the needy with programs like welfare, unemployment insurance, social security and Medicare. All these were opposed by the Republicans, again, because they felt that it was beyond the government’s scope.

Fast forward to 1980. Ronald Regan takes office in a similar time. Frankly, the economy wasn’t in as deep a crisis as it was in 1932 because Roosevelt’s programs were still in place, but unemployment was high and the economy was poor. Reagan’s response was what was called “Trickle down” economics; Cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans and largest corporations and their extra profits would “Trickle down” through the entire economy, until even the poorest Americans would be better off. He cut government spending on health, education and welfare, saying that it was unnecessary and too much of a burden to provide those things. Citizens were pretty much left to ‘fend for themselves’ and consumer protection, environmental protections and student loans were all cut.

Both tactics worked, to a point, but I think it very important to look at the different approaches. Roosevelt thought that the “Little man” needed protection and assistance and that once the poorest Americans had money in their pockets, the economy would improve. Besides which, he felt it important for every citizen to have food, shelter, medical care and education, no matter how poor they were. Reagan approached from the opposite view, that if you could make General Motors more profitable, they would eventually hire more workers or pay bigger dividends, getting more money into circulation. And the “Free market” (unregulated businesses) would provide a better life for all. If a manufacturer sold tainted food, for example, people sickened or killed by that product would not purchase it in the future and the company would eventually fail. Only manufacturers who provided pure food would survive. There was no need for government to get involved, certifying that the food produced was edible.

So that’s the first difference between the two parties.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/29/06 at 9:12am

Bush changed all that.

The Republican Party is now the party of Big Government (e.g. Homeland Security), wasteful spending (e.g. the war in Iraq), gargantuan deficits ($250 billion), trade deficits and a devalued dollar, and unprecedented intrusive government intervention in the private lives of American citizens.

The Republican party, against the better judgment of true conservatives, has become the party of state-sanctioned torture, domestic spying and a supra-Constitutional suspension of the dearly held freedom of habeus corpus.

The Republican Party, to the disgust of all decent people, has become the party of inappropriate sexual harrassment of young people entrusted to the protection of Congress--behavior that was enabled and hushed-up by the Republican leadership.

The Republican-dominated Congress has become the party of pork barrel and corruption, benefiting corporations and K Street lobbyists, on a level that surpasses that of any previous Democratic-controlled Congresses.

The Republican Party, which used to accuse theDemocrats of being tax-and-spend liberals, has become the party of Tax-Cuts-for-the-Wealthy and Deficit-Spending.

Posted: 10/29/06 at 9:17am

Yeah Joey I was going to talk about that in part two! Thanks for taking it on!

[EverythingIsRENT]

Posted: 10/29/06 at 9:59am

you know what, it's not even worth it.

Updated On: 10/29/06 at 09:59 AM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 10/29/06 at 10:00am

It's always fun taking you on, Joe!

I should have mentioned: The Repiblicans' tax-cut-and-spend spree has amassed a national debt that is already $8.5 trillion.

And Clinton left a SURPLUS of $400 billion.

And WHO profited during these six years?

Posted: 10/29/06 at 3:06pm

Some economists opine that Bush's unprecendented spending spree has acted as a sort of mini-new deal boosting the economy through massive government spending.

I find that interesting, especially since they have attempted to undo so much of the good work done by FDR.