What Does It Mean To Be a Democrat an a Republican in 2012 - Research Paper Example

Section/# What It Means to be Party Affiliated Although discussing what a particular political party currently stands for and comparing that to what the party has stood for in the past is the subject matter of a dissertation length analysis, this brief analysis will seek to understand how the current system has emerged, what each respective party’s platform is currently, the values engendered by such a platform, the main issues surrounding each party currently, similarities between the parties, and how these parties have morphed, evolved, and swapped positions over the past two hundred years of history. The United States first began to experience what could be termed political parties nearly as soon as our government was established. At this time we had many political debates between what were deemed federalists and anti-federalists. Ironically, this would serve as a harbinger of the two party system that invariably developed within the United States. Although third parties existed and successfully sought office as last as the 1830s, their lifespan was short-lived by the emergence of two leviathans of political power that have successfully dominated the political environment in the United States for the better part of the past two hundred years. For the casual observer, party affiliation has a strong connotation with regards to what belief systems the voter identifies himself/herself with. However, party affiliation is a figment of a given election cycle. This is mainly due to the fact that there are no discernible party values or issues which can be definitively traced throughout history and once analyzed – deemed as either firmly Republican or firmly Democratic issues/values. This intrinsic lack of definable/discernible values has disheartened many voters and forced them to become apolitical and/or apathetic. The Republican Party (Grand Ole Party) as we know it today hardly resembles the party that was born in 1854 out of an opposition to slavery. Elements of the nation’s political forces, fed up with the “sin of slavery” and determined to forge a path ahead for the United States that was free from this vice, opted to create their own political entity. This Republican Party elected its first President in Abraham Lincoln. What is interesting to note, as far as an irony is concerned, is that the Republican Party’s slogan in 1854 read, “Free Labor, Free Land, Free Men”. This slogan had strong connection with the time due to the ongoing battle over slavery; however, there appeared within it a uniquely socialist concept that most individuals have not considered. The statement “free land” referred to the fact that rich plantation owners were buying up all of the good farm land and leaving the poorer farmers left with the unwanted scraps and rejects/unviable land. The fact that the original Republican Party was entirely against the ability of a few wealthy individuals to lord over and control the fate of the poor was, at that time, an issue worthy of polarization between the Democratic and Republican Party; interestingly, this is no longer the case as it appears as if both parties only perennially work towards the benefits of those entities and corporations/individuals that bankroll their electoral campaigns. The Democratic Party on the other hand was born out of the Anti-Federalist movement of the 1790s. The Democratic Party of that time was of course defined by its rabid disagreement with Hamiltonian economics. Similarly, the party was promoted originally as what would become known as the “Democratic-Republican Party” and had a decidedly constitutionalist approach as well as one that advocated the supreme authority of state’s rights as a doctrine of further self-determination among the young republic. This traditional understanding of the Democratic party survived more or less in tact up until the Civil War. At this time, the Democratic Party, under the leadership of key firebrands in the South, pushed for the continuation of slavery as well as adding further states wherein slavery would be allowed. The party transformed itself during these years as a one-issue party; that of slavery. In this way, the party was severely weakened after the Civil War and was not able to truly recover its footing until many years afterwards. The second major defining moment for the Democratic party occurred in and around the late 1960s and 1970s. Although there were still elements within the party that fought vehemently against desegregation (namely Strom Thurmond of South Carolina), the party was slowly but surely transitioning itself away from the racial overtones that had defined the party for the better part of 100 years. In a bid to soften the party’s stance and open up new pathways to attract a new stream of voters, outside of the Southern states that had been in lock step with the Democratic Party ever the Civil War era, the Democratic Party began to adopt a more socially liberal attitude. This was born out of a desire to acquaint itself with the changing demographics of the nation (more people were now living in cities as compared to rural areas), as well as purposefully redefine the party away from the negative racial associations that had for so long been indicative of its platform. More or less, the position of the Democratic Party in the United States has remained fairly unchanged up until the current juncture. As always, issue voters help to differentiate and transform any given election year into a melee between both parties; however, more or less, this final iteration of the Democratic Party remains with us until the current time. With respect to the parties current platforms, they may be defined as follows. Firstly, the Democratic Party claims that its main platform includes the following: an emphasis on rebuilding the middle class, a greater togetherness (fostering bipartisanship), promoting a strong defense while working to end foreign entanglements, and instituting, regulating, and maintaining a rigid set of regulations that attempts to guide and direct the business engines that have the ability to drive the United States into a greater form of prosperity. Similarly, the stated Republican Party platform involves, rebuilding and restoring the American economy, creating jobs, restoring a constitutionalist approach to governance, promoting energy independence, reforming government to serve the people, renewing American values, promoting and securing American exceptionalism. Although the Democratic Party’s platform is fairly straight forward, the Republican Party’s platform needs a bit of explanation to get to the heart of what is actually being advocated. Firstly, with respect to renewing American values, this is a nebulous concept and cannot be determined by any one individual due to the fact that everyone, even those within the party, has a distinctly different subset of values which they hold dear (Stebenne 2010). Similarly, the discussion of promoting American exceptionalism is also vague. This can be understood as both an arrogant world view in which America tramples around its neighbors lauding its achievements while making a new list of enemies; or, it can be understood as promoting a more vigorous defensive capability; or it can be promoting a new iteration of empire building. The words themselves sound harmless enough; however, when taken at their most general meaning, the connotations are somewhat disturbing due to the fact that what is meant by these things is not clearly and cleanly defined. Although the questions that were asked in association with this assignment were almost entirely concentric on the historical development as compared to the current illustration of these parties, there is a fundamental question that is missing from such an analysis. This fundamental question can be defined as: what measurable differences exist with respect to what these parties advocate and what they actually do. It is the belief of this particular author that although a great show is made of the current political process in the United States, democracy itself is nearly defunct. Although this is a bold statement, consider the fact that the United States has a two party system. Secondly, consider the fact that although a great amount of noise is generated with regards to policies and regulatory differences between these two parties; although there exists 24/7 television networks whose sole function it is to track the very move of each of these respective party positions and think tanks, very little difference exists between the parties themselves. Whereas in Europe there exist 20 or more parties representing various blocks of voter interest and forming coalitions of governance, no such system exists within the United States. Although the United States does have what some shareholders to be an entirely free and fair election process; however, when one considers the fact that there only exist two choices to this election cycle, the true nature of “free and fair” comes into question.1 Furthermore, when one analyzes the fact that each successive administration draws from the very same talent pool (Chairmen of the Fed/economic advisors etc) that their predecessor has drawn upon to formulate political and economic strategy, it leads one to question to the ability that these parties have to think on their own and the level to which each of the parties is ultimately controlled by moneyed interests within the private sector. The fact of the matter is that the same economic advisors have advised the past 4 presidents. These same economic advisors transcend party lines. The blurred nature of whether or not the Federal Reserve is in fact a Federal entity or some sort of quasi private manifestation of Goldman Sachs and the other mega-banking interests leads one to even further question the nature of the “two party” system. With respect to the final question, what it means to be a Democrat or Republican with regards to the 2012 election; this issue breaks down to a fundamental understanding of how one views the current world in which we live. Due to the nature of the political rhetoric that necessarily defines each of our election cycles, the fundamental stances of the parties and those that support them are concentric around but a few base beliefs and values that help to differentiate the types of voters that are participating in the election process (Bernard et al 1989). A complete reduction of the party platforms seeks to understand what the component values that voters will be weighing with respect to what candidate, and by extension, what party they will cast their support behind. These values are an interesting divergence from issues and party platform. Accordingly, the values are a subjective measurement and one that each party attempts to consciously and unconsciously define in the minds of the electorate. Although creating a running tally of key values that each party is attempting to transmit to their base would be a bit of an oversimplification, this analysis will attempt to briefly highlight but a few of the most salient value-sets that help to define both parties. The first of these which will be dealt with is that of the Republican party. The values associated with this party are often hard to distinguish due to the fact that they are often in direct contention with one another on a practical basis. For instance, one cannot question the fact that a principal value of the Republican Party is one of a strong national defense (coupled with a strong presence throughout the world). This value has seen the United States involve itself in an increasing number of international affairs and wars since around the 1980s (Romano et al 2011). However, this particular value is at odds with a secondary value that GOP supporters often praise; this is the value of fiscal responsibility. Juxtaposing these two values is oftentimes difficult for the candidates of the GOP due to the fact that an increasing level of foreign entanglements weighs heavy on the American budget and is one of the primary culprits for the fact that the United States has been running high budget deficits ever since the early 2000s. Similarly, it is a stated value and inherent voter attraction mechanism of the GOP to praise and supposedly champion fiscal responsibility. It this unnatural footing that places the GOP at somewhat of a disadvantage within the recent past. Due to the fact that voters have a difficult time voting for a party that claims to be both fiscally responsible while at the same time running trillion dollar deficits in the name National Security and prosecuting foreign wars, engaging voters with the values of the GOP has resulted in landslide losses in 2008. Similarly, in order to attract a higher number of voters, the GOP engages with traditionalist Christian groups by promising to return the nation to its spiritually understood value systems (Williams 2011). As previously stated, these value systems are nebulous and difficult to interpret due to the fact that each and every individual has a different understanding of what value system would best serve the needs of the nation. The nebulous nature of this particular value allows the GOP to have its cake and eat it too. Due to the fact that there are so many divergent views on direction and values within the party, this is able to be a primary value while at the same time a campaign promise that does not have to be completed, delivered, or followed up on; as merely saying the magic words is often enough to tilt the balance in a given election cycle. Similarly, the values of the Democratic Party have incongruous elements as well. Most notably among these is desire to increase employment opportunities within the nation while at the same time keeping a high level of social welfare and high taxes on the business structure (Kennedy 1980). Any course in economics will quickly introduce the student to the inarguable mathematics associated with the Lauffer curve. As such, the individual can quickly see the inverse relationship between efficiency within an economy and the overall tax burden that the society experiences as a result. Furthermore, when one examines the high emphasis that the Democratic Party places on job growth and compares that with the high emphasis and expansion of many social welfare programs, it is easy to observe a marked disconnect between competing value systems within the party itself. Such disconnects help to bring home the point that a two party system is unable to provide the breadth of interests that an electorate necessarily espouses. Without a wider and more varied choice, voters will be forced into the respective Democrat or Republican Parties without the ability to differentiate their own views (Phillips-Fein2011). Similarly, this cookie cutter approach makes it nearly impossible for either party to speak to the needs of their own electorate or base. Due to the fact that both parties are essentially comprised of a hodge-podge of elements all forced together and conveniently labeled, it is all but impossible to speak to these values and translate this concern into noticeable and measurable policy implementation. Sadly, although a third (even fourth, fifth or sixth) party would be highly beneficial to our political and economic system, this eventuality is highly unlikely. There are two primary reasons for this. The first of which has to do with the electorate. The American electorate is highly suspicious of third party candidates and has historically been shy of putting any great deal of support behind what is oftentimes labeled as “unknown”. Secondly, and most importantly, the power structure that currently defines the American political landscape is determined to keep an iron grip on the political process without having to share power with an upstart third party. This fear of competition has driven a lot of behind the scenes negotiations with disgruntled factors of each of the dominant parties. In this way, would-be third party candidates are often times coerced or given generous offers in order to merely stay out of a given race or election cycle. The preceding analysis has helped to provide an overarching framework within which to analyze the history, actions, values, decision making process, shortcomings, and other issues associated with the United State’s two-party system of governance. It should be further emphasized that although he given structure is incomplete, rife with corruption, and oftentimes does not fully represent the needs and desires of the electorate, it is nonetheless one of the premier examples of a functioning democracy within the world. Regardless, it is the belief of this author that the system could experience a great deal of growth, more completely represent shareholder interests, and seek to better represent the various factions of political thought within the nation by adopting and encouraging more parties to incorporate themselves into the political spectrum. In so doing, a more nuanced and varied approach to issues would be able to be presented without experiencing the continual deadlock that is oftentimes indicative of our political system. References Bernard, S., & Bernard Sanders is the Mayor of Burlington, V. t. (1989, January 3). This Country Needs a Third Political Party. New York Times. p. 19. Kennedy, E. M. (1980). Principles of Democratic Party. Vital Speeches Of The Day, 46(23), 714. Phillips-Fein, K. (2011). Conservatism: A State of the Field. Journal Of American History, 98(3), 723-743. Romano, A., Graham, D. A., & Coppins, M. (2011). CRASHING THE PARTY. Newsweek, 158(21), 44-47. Stebenne, D. (2010). The Conservative Ascendancy: How the GOP Right Made Political History – By Donald T. Critchlow. Historian, 72(1), 161-162. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6563.2009.00260_8.x WILLIAMS, K. (2011). Crime, Corruption and Chaos. International Feminist Journal Of Politics, 13(1), 1-24. doi:10.1080/14616742.2011.534659 Read More