Donkeys and Elephants

I would bet that if you asked 100 Americans "What is the main difference between the Democratic party and the Republican party?", you would be hard pressed to get even one reasoned and intelligent reply. You would find that most people would define their own party as sane and realistic, and their opponents as either "bleeding-heart socialist liberals" or "born-again right-wing whackos".

I think that most people choose their party affiliation based on that party's position on only one or two issues. Which issues, you ask? Different issues for different people. For many people abortion rights is a key issue and is the main factor in aligning with one party or another. My wife is a physical therapist and to a large part makes her decision based on health care policies. Many people support the party that best protects their livelihood; The Democrats are generally more supportive of personal injury lawyers and the adversarial civil law arena, so many personal injury lawyers are Democrats. Republicans generally favor lower tax rates, so people who make a lot of money (and therefore pay a lot of taxes) often identify as Republican based on tax policy.

To me, there's a very simple philosophical difference between the parties. In general, Republicans believe that government should be as small as possible, and Democrats believe that government has a greater level of responsibility to provide services to its citizenry that cannot be provided by the private sector alone. It's that simple.

This country was founded on State's rights. The original 13 colonies were rebelling against over-bearing rule from a distant king. They didn't fight for independence only to bind themselves under the power of a new ruler, not so distant. The Constitution, the Federal Constitution that set forth the powers of the new national government was designed to make the Federal government limited in scope and power. The individual colonies didn't share an identity beyond thier colonial borders other than as subjects of the King, whose power they sought to throw off. They banded together as a union of independent states for their mutual protection against Britain's vengeance and opposition. The people of Pennsylvania didn't give a whit about the people of New York, but they needed to count on the help of New Yorkers if Pennsylvania needed to fight against the British.

Look at the name of our country. "The United States of America." America was the name that the New World was known by. The founding fathers were much more interested in the independent States being united for only limited purpose. States. United. In America.

Don't misunderstand me. The founding fathers knew that this new union was based on a mutual desire to rebel against an unfair and oppresive rule. They didn't want any of the colonies to repeat in miniature the policies and power of a monarchy. Together, representatives from each of the colonies agreed that the people should have the right to choose their leaders and to remove them. That people should be free to speak their mind without fear of government retribution. That power should not be too concentrated in any one person or institution, but that there should be checks and balances to the use and abuse of power. That those charged with enforcing the laws aren't the same as those who make the laws. That all men are created equal, endowed with certain unalienable rights. Good stuff, huh?

The States didn't want some far-off ruler telling them what they could and couldn't do, but they agreed that there would need to be an overriding government presiding over the Union so that there was a fair and equitable procedure to allow each State to weigh-in on matters of importance to the Union as a whole. Still, the intention was clear that the power should rest mainly with each State and that the role of the Federal government should be limited. The actions of the Federal government should only be to address issues regarding the Union as a whole, such as military protection and defense.

Up to this point, both Democrats and Republicans agree. The point of contention between them is which issues affect the Union sufficiently to warrant action. No one questions that the Federal government should oversee and direct the military for our national defense. This doesn't preclude each and every state from organizing and maintaining their own state militia. Running the military is an expensive proposition so the Federal government requires each and every citizen to pay a portion of their income as taxes. Every American benefits from our common defense. Not all issues are so clear cut.

In my next entry we'll get into the nuts and bolts of what the government should be doing for its citizens.