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.

Why Do Republicans Hate President Obama?

As this blog has pointed out on several occasions, Republicans and conservatives have been throwing an unending tide of slander at President Obama since before he even was elected. Most of this has been vile, despicable, and even so outlandish as to be hilarious.

But the question remains: why exactly do Republicans hate the President so much? Granted, he is a member of the Democratic party, so the right-wing can't be expected to be happy about everything that goes on under the Obama administration.


There are, however, multiple aspects and policy decisions taken by the President that are in fact much more conservative than liberal - things which seem right up the Republican party's alley, but which they unilaterally and quixotically dislike. Ezra Klein, among others, has posited that the President is actually more like a moderate Republican than anything near the left-wing closet-socialist that conservatives make Obama out to be. Consider the following:

- the President favors civil unions for homosexual couples instead of full marriage equality

- the Obama administration has not raised taxes; indeed, the President has extended the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy while also reducing tax rates for 95% of the rest of the population. Taxes are now at their lowest level since Eisenhower was in office.

- President Obama is almost as pro-business as staunch conservatives: he has surrounded himself with people like Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner, who were part of the Clinton-era deregulation craze that played a large role in dismantling the nation's economy; he has appointed such business and financial-sector luminaries from companies like GE and Goldman Sachs to high positions of economic importance in the White House

- contrary to claims of Obama's economic policies strangling business, American corporations are currently recording their highest profits ever, currently sitting on some $2 trillion

- the PATRIOT Act, something the liberal base of the Democratic party fervently wants to repeal, has been extended repeatedly

- gun rights have been expanded, now allowing firearms to be carried into National Parks

- financial regulatory reform is in many respects right-wing, leaving "Too-Big-to-Fail" alive and well, as well as keeping derivatives from being monitored publicly - something which also played a large role in devastating the American economy

- the much-balleyhooed Economic Stimulus Bill was only about half as large as many liberals wanted, as well as consisting more of tax cuts and credits than actual spending; despite this, it has saved or created millions of jobs

- Guantanamo Bay has remained open, and suspects will be tried by military tribunals instead of civilian court

- under the President's orders, American SEAL forces assassinated Osama Bin Laden

- the President has sent thousands of additional troops to fight the war in Afghanistan

- under Obama, unmanned drone attacks in Pakistan have substantially increased, resulting in civilian deaths

- the crown jewel of Obama's presidency thus far, health care reform, resulted in the most right-wing reform of the health care sector possible; no single-payer, no public option, but a lot of new customers for the private insurance industry and some other aspects (such as banning preexisting conditions and allowing kids to stay on their parents' insurance until 26) make this bill better than nothing, but at the end of the day it is essentially the same bill as the one produced by Republican former-Governor of Massachusetts, Mitt Romney.

- the Obama administration has overseen a record level of deportations of illegal immigrants

Much of the preceding points would almost certainly be being praised by Republicans right now were Obama not the president. After all, President Obama has cut taxes, is against gay marriage, sent troops to Afghanistan, escalated drone attacks on Pakistan, killed Osama, extended the PATRIOT Act, expanded gun rights, and has reformed health care and the financial sector in a generally-speaking center-right manner.

What's not to like about all that, if you're conservative? What is it about this president that Republicans refuse to like, if he has governed in much the same way one of their own party would? Why, exactly, do Republicans hate President Obama?

No doubt some dislike him because of his skin color and strange-sounding name; this is a minority of people, though not as small as could be hoped in this day and age. Establishment Republicans hate him for being articulate, sophisticated, and appearing "cool". The media hoopla that surrounded Senator Obama during the presidential campaign, both nationally and internationally, was something that hadn't been seen around a candidate for president in decades - let alone a Republican candidate.

Republicans hate the President because he won the election. They hate him because their side lost, and they lost because almost everyone agreed that they had run the country in a horrifically terrible and incompetent manner in literally every way possible.

The only reason they are opposing him now in so vicious a manner is to gain political power. By denying, rejecting, slandering, and twisting Obama and the Democrats' agenda and message, the Republicans were able to paint the President as a failure - directly leading to the right-wing's massive gains in the 2010 midterm election.

They continue to hate the President -including the not-so-subtle attacks on his background, ethnicity, race, and religion - because it is politically expedient for them to do so, and they deserve the country's condemnation because of it. The United States stands at a point of staggeringly weak economic status, and the Republican party's number one stated goal is to make President Obama a one-term president. Such positioning of the party above the country is despicable and craven.

The Republican party, in their current state and with their current actions, are a stain upon the face of American democracy, and the country is undeniably worse off for it. Americans want and deserve better. Unfortunately, this type of leadership from one of the two main parties looks set to continue for the foreseeable future, a tactic that will negatively impact the country.

The Legacy of Germany's Iron Chancellor

Otto von Bismarck was a master statesman, helping to reshape the European landscape in the latter half of the 19th century. No other figure so decisively shaped either Germany or Europe for decades before or after the Iron Chancellor.

As both a statesman and a politician, Bismarck was unsurpassed in his ability to accomplish his overarching goals, no matter how long it took or what means were required to do so.

Ruthless, partisan, deceptive, yes. But his maneuverings as Prussian Prime Minister would eventually unite the disparate German lands into a mighty Empire capable of irreversibly transforming the European geo-political landscape. Bismarck was the only man capable and willing to create a new German Empire, while at the same time maintaining the balance of power on the continent and keeping domestic political unrest at bay.

When Otto von Bismarck was growing up, Germany was an idea, not a nation. German-speakers were spread throughout Central and Eastern Europe, numbering in the millions but lacking a unified, coherent national awareness. Bismarck was born to Prussian nobility in 1815, at a time when the French Empire had just finished wreaking havoc and devastation across Europe and almost ceasing Prussia to exist in the process.

The Revolutions of 1848 showed that there was a strong nationalist current running amongst the ethnic Germans of Europe - but the only way the idea of a German nation could become reality would be through the leadership of either Prussia or Austria, the two great German-speaking powers. Bismarck understood that, in order for the German people to unite and maintain stability, the predominance of Prussia would have to be assured. Austria could never hope to maintain strength of unity amongst the different German lands when their own state consisted of dozens of ethnicities and nationalities, all vying for separate interests. Prussia had the industrial strength, the prestige, the military, and the desire to use all of the aforementioned to achieve such a feat.

This was no easy thing to do; the German lands had never been more than loosely connected, and the states that had joined together in alliances had only been certain regional areas - the North German Confederation or the Hanseatic League, for example. Different Germans who lived in different areas had completely different dialects, weights, measures, and most importantly, religions. Southern Germany and Austria were Catholic and more rural while the northern parts were more urban and Protestant.

After the devastation and subjugation that had been accorded to German lands by the French tyrant Napoleon, hatred of France became an entrenched part of the German psyche. This was felt by most German-speakers, but especially so for Prussia, whose honor had been severely damaged by the embarrassments handed to them after military defeats to the French, of all people. By the early 1860s, Bismarck had become Prussia's Prime Minister and realized that the new French Emperor Napoleon III thought quite a bit more highly of himself and his skills than was warranted.


Bismarck's brilliance lay in his ability to complete overarching goals to perfection; in this case, Bismarck's desire to enhance Prussia's power at the expense of France's had the added bonuses of uniting the rest of the German lands under Prussian dominance, subjecting Austria to second fiddle, isolating and humiliating France while also creating a new Great Power in the German Empire.

The first step was to make sure Austria could not become the leader of a new Germany. This was ensured by two wars, the first against Denmark and the second against Austria herself. Denmark's southernmost two provinces of Schleswig and Holstein had been disputed for a long time, and after the Danish King died, a war broke out between Austria and Prussia on the one side and Denmark on the other. Bismarck's diplomacy was crucial to this war, as he ensured that Britain and France remained isolated, unable to commit troops to Denmark's assistance, while also handing the spoil of Holstein to Austria, thereby sandwiching the territory between two Prussian-controlled areas in a part of Europe that was far outside of Austria's sphere of influence.

The corresponding war against Austria was over quickly, thereby assuring Prussian hegemony among the Germans. The corresponding treaty again highlights Bismarck's aptitude; all of the non-aligned German regions, notably the Kingdom of Bavaria, agreed to join a united Germany under Prussian leadership should the German Confederation be aggressively attacked by France.

In another stroke of brilliance, the Iron Chancellor managed to alter an outgoing telegram to Emperor Napoleon III, triggering an idiotic overreaction by the French that led to a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Prussian military. Not only did the war last barely a few weeks, but the Emperor himself was captured, as well as Paris. To add even more insult to injury, the new German Empire was proclaimed in the Palace of Versailles, the embodiment of French royalty.

For almost 20 years after that, as the new Chancellor of the German Empire, Otto von Bismarck oversaw the emergence of a new Great Power that should have massively disrupted the delicate balance of power in Europe, but did not. This was due in no small part to Bismarck's own gravitas.

Through a series of diplomatic treaties, Bismarck managed to secure Austria-Hungary and Italy as allies, while also keeping Russia and Great Britain neutral. Such maneuvers had the desired effect of effectively isolating France; the danger of inciting a general European war was significantly reduced, and if one were to come to pass, it would have been France surrounded on both fronts rather than Germany. These policies were almost unilaterally reversed after the new Kaiser Wilhelm II dismissed Bismarck in 1890, a terribly stupid decision that quickly made Germany an enemy of Britain, France, and Russia while also unnecessarily provoking an arms race with a naval buildup and expansion into Africa.

Chancellor Bismarck was also an astute politician on the domestic front. When the Social Democratic Party threatened to overtake his preferred conservative majority in the Reichstag, Bismarck incredibly stole their platform from under them: saying that unemployed or sick workers were bad for the economy, Bismarck helped implement the beginnings of the modern German welfare system, with unemployment insurance, health care, and social security. Though he was vehemently anti-socialist, Bismarck simply re-worded the SPD's legislation into a conservative framework that engendered political victories while also helping the economy.

Though Bismarck was far from perfect - he hated Catholics, Socialists, and the Polish, attempting to enact several discriminatory laws; he restricted Germany to an anti-democratic aristocratic monarchy, with too much power vested in the Kaiser and the Junkers - his policies and achievements for Germany were phenomenal.

Without Bismarck, it is unclear exactly if Germany ever would have united, and if they did, what form it would have taken. Though his use of military means to accomplish the unification is probably not what an idealist would have liked, it worked. Only a master diplomat was able to rework the European geo-political landscape to benefit Germany to such an extent, while also isolating the other Great Powers of the day and maintain domestic stability and prosperity.

Germany truly could have used a man of his caliber, and rued the Iron Chancellor's death in 1898.