Donkeys and Elephants, Continued

So, Republicans think government should be as small as possible, and Democrats think government has a duty to be responsible for a greater number of issues. There's good arguments for the positions of both sides.

For example, some projects are so big and so important that only the government can take them on. How do you get the states to agree to cooperate in the building of an interstate highway system? If California builds a multi-lane highway to the Arizona border and Arizona doesn't meet us there it really doesn't work, does it?

There are only 16 deep-water ports on the West Coast of the U.S., half of them in California. These ports are the main import and export portals for the U.S. to half of the world. They are choke points that are crucial to a large part of American commerce. Should California alone bear the cost of building and maintaining these facilities that benefit everyone in the U.S.?

It's clear to both sides that the above examples fall under the purview of the Federal government to at least assist in guaranteeing these important parts of the nation's infrastructure. Not everything is this clear cut. Back in 1979 the Federal government agreed to loan Chrysler $1.5 billion to prevent the automaker from declaring bankruptcy. The argument was that America's auto industry deserved government protection because of its importance to the American economy. Hundreds of thousands of American jobs depended on auto manufacturing and if those people all lost their jobs the economy would lose all of the money that those workers would spend each month, dragging the country further into a recession. To protect the economy and the American auto industry Federal lawmakers bailed-out Chrysler. Not so clear cut. Here we are now, almost 30 years later and the government is guaranteeing $700 billion to bail-out the financial industry.

In general, Republicans would argue that the government has no place in the market; They believe that market forces should be left alone to determine winners and losers in business and that government regulation and action interfere with the proper workings of the economy. Regulation is guardedly necessary to protect consumers where the market is very closed, such as public utilities where the danger of monopoly is too high, and in areas of public safety such as food and drug safety. A strictly Republican viewpoint would have let Chrysler fail in 1979, and let the nation fall into another depression here in 2008 due to the poor lending practices and investment practices in the financial sector. It's just the market at work, and sometimes losers are big losers and pull a lot of people down with them.

Of course, philosophy is only a guide to one's behavior and the harm caused to our nation as a whole would be too severe to stand by idly on Republican principles and merely watch it happen due to market forces. It is evident from this example that both Democrats and Republicans feel a sense of social responsibility to protect the citizens of the country they serve, but disagree as to the level at which actions are required.

In the movie Indecent Proposal, a billionaire offers a young couple $1 million if the wife would spend the night with him. The couple agonizes over their decision because $1 million would change their life, and it's only for one night, and it won't really mean anything, will it? I say, once you make that decision you have admitted that you are a whore, the rest is just about negotiating the price. Republicans will do it once, but only if the money is really worth it and they don't get too dirty, while Democrats aren't beyond tricking on the streets from time to time when they need a fix.

Wow, did that metaphor get out of hand! Let me clarify. I'm a Democrat myself and I don't mean to imply that my party sells favors for money. It's just that the level of need doesn't need to reach the dire levels that compel Republicans to act to help the country. Democrats think that personal rights need government protection. In the same way that racial discrimination was wrong and required legislation to protect the rights of people of all colors, the Dems want to ensure the rights of all Americans to be treated equally, at the workplace, in the market, and at home behind the privacy of their own walls. Democrats see an inequity in that not every American has access to quality health care and think that the government should act to make that happen. Democrats worry about the least fortunate in our society and think that the government has a responsibility to help look after those who can't (or won't) care for themselves. Welfare, food stamps, medicaid and disablity payments are a step away from Socialism, the Republican would say. Take away their crutches and force them to walk again and carry their own weight.

So, what do you think? Should the government step all the way back and keep its hands out of the American pie, or is the government in the best position to act as a referee and keep the game fair for everyone?

In my next post I'll discuss the basic economic philosophies of each party.