The Difference Between Two Parties

American politics is rather unique. One of the major differences between the United States and other countries is the entrenched position of the two major parties, something which has lasted for decades and likely will continue to do so. Being a country that essentially only has two parties, one would expect there to be pretty big gulfs in ideology, policies, etc., so as to give voters a clear choice. Though there are some pretty big differences to be found among the average Republican and Democrat, many things are actually quite similar.

In his 1948 book, titled The American Political Tradition, historian Richard Hofstadter argued that the American presidency had always maintained two major themes, no matter the ideology or party affiliation of the president. Those two currents of American politics were capitalism and nationalism - something which Hofstadter saw in every administration up to his time, and which can still be seen in many instances through to the present day.

Democrats and Republicans often have narrow debates, not really arguing about the proverbial where so much as the how. For example, the current big issue enveloping the American political world is how to reduce the deficit and how deep spending cuts should go, instead of whether the deficit is something to be concerned with right now or whether spending should be cut at all.

It is obvious, therefore, that the American two-party system tends to narrow the political debate in ways that are not really seen in other multi-party democracies. Nonetheless, there do remain certain important ways that can be seen separating the two parties.

The biggest difference between the Democratic and Republican party is their approach to governing. Democrats tend to try to at least seriously tackle important issues of the day in an attempt to responsibly govern, whereas Republicans maintain an ideological chain that renders them invariably lusting after political power when in the minority and chasing unrealistic far-right policies when in the majority.

Take a look at the recent 4-year period when the Democrats controlled Congress and the 2-year period when they also had Presidency. If one looks at the wish-list of the liberal base that Democrats are alleged to represent with the actual policy outcomes, the two are not even close.

The Democrats were unable to pass any significant environmental or climate-change legislation. They did not pass a gay-marriage bill, and only managed to repeal Don't Ask-Don't Tell during the lame-duck session of Congress when no one had to care about being reelected. The District of Columbia remains a district and not a state, though by doing so it would have tremendously helped their own party. Capital punishment is still legal, the PATRIOT Act was renewed, more soldiers were sent to Afghanistan, universal health care remains a pipe dream, the minimum wage is still insufficient, the richest Americans remain taxed at the same percent they were under President Bush, Wall Street remains largely unregulated, no substantial immigration bill was passed, and on and on.

For liberal and left-leaning Americans, the period of Democratic control can only be seen as mostly glass half-full, if not worse. Part of the reason why such liberal desires went unfulfilled was because of the opposition of Republicans, but also because there were more pressing matters to attend to, like trying to save the economy. A lot of bills were also watered-down by compromises with Republicans, who abused their Senatorial privilege of the filibuster. But the least that can be said about the Democratic Congress was that they sincerely tried to govern in the best interests of most of the American people most of the time.

Compare that to the 6-year period when Republicans controlled every level of government and with the recently-elected Republican majorities and governorships in many states.

The Republican mantra of low taxes and high military spending led the country to two ill-led wars of questionable legality, both decisions of which are the major reasons why the national debt was increased by several trillion dollars under a so-called fiscally responsible party. Republican distaste of alleged "Big Government" led to the appointments to the heads of federal departments people who were incompetent or had a direct, monetary stake in not regulating what they were supposed to regulate. See the federal government's response to Hurricane Katrina to see how that turned out.

Now that Republicans control several state legislatures in addition to those states' governorships, the Republican party's hatred of abortion is resulting in the most severe attacks on women's rights in recent memory. Republicans' populist dislike of immigrants and people of color has seen neo-fascist immigration laws springing up in places like Utah and Arizona. In the name of fiscal responsibility, Republicans have nakedly attempted to destroy cherished liberal and Democratic-supported institutions by enacting massive spending cuts of programs they don't like - regardless of their usefulness - and stripping public unions - who tend to get Democrats elected - of their basic function as a societal institution. Though many of the policies are unpopular and idiotic -see the fraudulent Paul Ryan budget plan laughingly called the "Path to Prosperity" that privatizes Medicare while enacting even more huge tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans - Republicans remain steadfast in their wishes, no matter how far away in fantasy-land such proposals may be.

That is the difference between two parties.

One may make mistakes and anger their core supporters through compromise in an attempt to responsibly govern while the other maintains a rigid ideology at all times, no matter what the circumstances may call for, in an everlasting attempt to seize or maintain political power. See, for example, the time at any point in which the Republican party has been okay with current tax levels, the EPA, corporate taxes, regulation, etc. This mindset, in which a certain set of policies are favored no matter the circumstances, is what MIT economist David Autor calls "now-more-than-everism", and its pervasive, often deleterious effects can clearly be seen at all times within the right-wing gong show that incorporates one of the two major American parties.

At a time when approval ratings of either party are scandalously low, and with those of Congress even lower, the presence of such a puerile, impractical, and irresponsible party threatening to take the reins of governing makes a slanderous mark on American democracy. Americans deserve to make a choice upon whom to vote for, and they deserve all of the choices to be responsible, with the nation's best interests at heart.

Though Republicans no doubt believe they have America's best interests at heart, they are not a responsible choice. The party is, in fact, delinquent, irresponsible, incompetent, and untrustworthy. There are of course certain members of the party who can act as mediators, moderate voices of conscience or dissent, but they are too few and are consistently drowned out by the boorish drone of the neo-fascist, neoconservative, neoliberal wing of the party that is now the heart and soul of what was once, many moons ago, a pragmatic, responsible American political institution.