Posted by
hwalker on Thursday, March 13, 2008 12:27:08 AM
When looking at the two major parties with an interest in discovering just what exactly divides them one from the other, we discover that there are two major categories their platforms address: Social issues and fiscal issues. Everything else is some microcosm of the two. Do you say you are "against abortion" or do you say you are "pro-choice"? Do taxes hurt the economy, or do social programs invest in the economy by creating jobs? Two parties, two camps within the parties that distinguish the members of the electorate as either moderate or radical. Realizing this helps to clarify for us how to examine the reality of what the differences in the two parties look like.
Historically, things were pretty straight forward. Democrats utilized Populist lingo while Republicans cried "cut taxes" on the way into battle. Democrats claimed progressiveness when pushing civil rights and then again when pushing same-sex marriage, and Republicans clung to either "state's rights" or "morality" depending on the fashion of the moment. But lately things seem to have gotten somewhat muddled up. The nineties hit and the threat of Y2K/Terrorism sent us into a tailspin. All of a sudden Bill the-Golden-boy Clinton (now replaced by my man Barrack Obama) decided to up and reform welfare and George I'll-Return-Dignity-to-the-White-House Bush got struck by the lightening of progressiveness and enacted "No Child Left Behind (NCLB)." Well, most Republicans are deeply disturbed by Bush's "compassionate conservatism" and are in agreement that not only was NCLB a dismal failure, but welfare reform was a damn good idea and how in the world did it get credited to the Dems anyway? Meanwhile the Democrats are disgusted by the trophy of 1996, resulting in skepticism of old Hillary despite her commitment to socialized health care through coercion AND are taking the opportunity to use NCLB as ammo to further sully the Bush presidency (not that the current administration needs any help with sullying itself).
Suffice it to say that the welfare reform legislation of 1996 did do one thing for the discussion on the differences between the parties. It served to close the gap between the two, making them virtually indistinguishable from one another in terms of the fiscal agenda. This leaves us with only one platform on which to make our decisions as the electorate: The social platform. Pretty weak platform, when one considers that Roe vs. Wade (1973) has yet to be overturned and the banning of Partial Birth Abortion served as a bone for the constituency. The only other social issue that seems to get anyone's attention these days is the issue of same-sex marriage, which was left in the hands of the States in the name of federalism. Who really won there? The Democrats, in that they kept one man, one woman from becoming constitutionalized, or the Republicans who kept the power in the hands of the State, and therefore the people? From a social standpoint, the Democrats. From a libertarian/federalist standpoint, the Republicans. Which brings us to another conundrum regarding the two parties: They both claim to be the party that represents the people, Republicans through Federalism and Democrats through Social programs, and in previous years through advocacy of Unions.
The idea of a Union seems to be the culmination of the statement "Power to The People." Unions were created with the intention of protecting the people from the abuse of Big Business and the God of Profit. However, it is generally agreed upon that Unions are bad for profit, and therefore bad for the market and the economy, which public policies are designed to support. In the United States today Unions have been all but crushed, particularly in the private sector. This conundrum surrounding the question of the Union is one that is vital both to discussions of the differences and relevance of parties and to the discussion of what really empowers the electorate. Why have the differences between the two parties become so miniscule and what does that look like in terms of intended and unintended consequences of policy making? Why has Populist rhetoric fallen out of fashion in the last twenty five years? Where have all the Unions gone, and does it really behoove the United States to focus so singularly on profit, served by the Market?