The tale of two parties

By Noralyn O. Dudt

NO MASKS REQUIREMENTS  in public schools  was legislated and executed  by Republican officials  in Iowa, Arkansas,  Arizona, Utah, Texas, Montana,  Tennessee, Florida, South Carolina during the thick of the COVID-19 epidemic.  It was a shocking declaration that  prevented  local governments and school districts from mandating the wearing of masks. It was an executive action that no one expected  as thousands were already dying from the virus  by the  day  and many of the dead  awaiting burials were kept in refrigerated trucks. Indeed a legislation that seemed incomprehensible until we pause to think and ask ourselves, was this one of the  features of "individual liberty" that Republicans espoused?

Other issues like gun violence in public schools and other public places want us to scream , "enough is enough,"  let us enact stricter gun laws. But these are cries that have been muted by "you cannot take away my gun; it's my constitutional right" speech. The Democratic Party and some sensible and moderate Republicans do not want to take away your guns. They just want to enact stricter gun laws so that assault rifles like AR 15 and other weapons of war do not end up in the hands  of deranged individuals and underage citizens.

The Republican Party  has evolved into something that former Republican presidents would not recognize today. It no  longer looks like the Grand Old Party that fascinated me 52 years ago in which I wanted to be a part. Former Presidents Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan would not recognize a party that wants to intrude the power of the state everywhere,  making a mockery of values it once espoused. Today's Republican Party,  while still claiming to stand for limited government, is practicing just the opposite—government intrusion everywhere. Not only legislating that masks are not mandatory  in public schools but also forbidding teachers from telling students about America's racial past.

The Republican Party,  known retroactively as the Democratic-Republican Party is referred to by historians as the Jeffersonian Republican Party. Founded by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in the early 1790s, it championed liberalism, republicanism, individual liberty, equal rights, decentralization, free markets, free trade, and agrarianism.  The party became increasingly dominant after the 1800 elections when the opposing Federalist Party collapsed.

Partisan politics was not what the “Founding Fathers” of the United States originally intended. Early political controversies in the 1790s saw the emergence of a two-party political system: the Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republican Party, centered on the differing views on federal government.

The term Republican was adopted by supporters of Thomas Jefferson, who favored a decentralized government with limited powers. Although Jefferson's political philosophy is consistent with the outlook of the modern Republican Party, his faction, which soon became known as the Democratic-Republican Party,  ironically evolved by 1830s into the Democratic Party,  the modern Republican Party's chief rival.

In 1854, the Republican Party stood against the extension of slavery  to the country's new territories,  and ultimately, for slavery's complete abolition.  During the 20th and 21st centuries the party came to be associated with laissez-faire capitalism, low taxes, and conservative social policies. The party acquired the acronym GOP  widely understood as the "Grand Old Party," in the 1870s. The party's official logo, the elephant, is derived from a cartoon by Thomas Nast and also dates from the 1870s.

The two party system came into being because the structure of U.S. elections, with one seat tied to a geographic district,  tends to lead dominance by two major political parties. Even when there are other options on the ballot, most voters understand that minor parties have no real chance of winning even a single office. Hence, they vote for a candidate of the two major parties in order to support a potential winner. Of the 535 members of the House and Senate,  only a handful identify as something other than Republican or Democrat. Third parties have fared no better in presidential elections. No third party candidate has ever won the presidency. Some historians or  political scientists might consider Abraham Lincoln to have been such a candidate,  but in 1860, the Republicans were a major party that had substantial numbers of earlier parties,  such as the Whig Party, and they were only the major party other than the Democratic Party.

The existence of two major parties, especially in our present era of strong parties, leads to sharp distinctions between the candidates and between party organizations. Republicans and Democrats differ substantially over several sources of meaning in life,  including faith, freedom, health and even  hobbies. In general, both the Republican Party and Democratic Party value  individual freedom but  the Democratic Party puts more emphasis on community. Hence, the Democratic Party typically supports a larger government role in economic and social  issues—environmental protection programs, gun control, less-strict immigration laws, and worker rights.

The call for limited government has been a recurring theme in Republican politics. Ronald Reagan's refrain that government is the problem, not the solution, has taken many rhetorical forms on the right, but the gist remains the same: big government should stay out of our lives and allow individual liberty to thrive. Republicans identify federal entitlement programs,  from Social Security and Medicare to unemployment insurance,  Medicaid  and food stamps, as particular culprits and argue that government should maintain a hands-off policy rather than "handout" policy. As mentioned earlier, these are programs embraced by Democrats. It has become conventional "wisdom" that conservatives favor limited government and liberals do not. But is advocating for the civil rights of minorities a 'handout'? Likewise, is it a government 'handout'  to support a safety net for individuals by backing social welfare programs and other initiatives? What about the Social Security and Medicare benefits that we as workers have already paid into?

For Democrats these federal programs are ways to provide for the well-being of our national community, particularly the needs of the most vulnerable. These are government interventions to improve the lives of recipients. Granted, this is not limited government. In railing against these  programs, Republicans raise questions about 'deservingness' and object to the monetary costs of the policies.  They maintain that they advocate limited,  non-interventionist government,  but are their own policies really limited and non-interventionist?  Despite the conservative freedom chorus, Republican policies belie their rhetoric.

Republicans favor autonomy and freedom in the economic domain, where they espouse a largely unfettered market, ( no regulations) in which they believe people prosper or fail on their own. And we have seen the results of "unfettered" markets: financial crisis in 2007-2008 (housing bubble), stock market collapse, company buyouts where people lost their jobs and their homes.

What is the appropriate place of government in people's lives? What should we regulate as a society. Both the left and the right want government involvement, but in different domains. For Democrats, with their Social Justice morality, it is primarily the economic domain, from strong regulation of the market to government spending for healthcare, education, and strong safety nets more generally. For Republicans with their Social Order morality, it is primarily the social domain, including sexuality and family roles, from abortion and same-sex marriage, which are perceived as instances of personal gratification that threaten the social order.

How they choose to regulate differs as well. In general, the Democrats are enabling, providing resources, and the right is restrictive, with a focus on prohibiting behaviors. These differences echo the activation versus inhibition underpinnings of Social Justice and Social Order respectively—approaching the good and avoiding the bad. There are clearly exceptions, as in Republicans' support of defense spending—a large budget for the military—and opposition to gun regulations, but these only serve to highlight the right's protect (versus provide) motive, which is of paramount importance in Social Order morality.

In terms of geography,  Democrats dominate in large cities, while Republicans are especially popular in rural areas. Geographical divide creates  a subculture that  fosters misunderstanding, and underlying the division is an even more fundamental fissure in the way people view the world. Social and economic issues differ in these areas  and too  complex to offer the same solutions. With this in view, it  would be irrational to define the Republican Party as "conservative" and the Democratic Party as "liberal."

In politics, researchers usually define "conservatism" as a general tendency to resist change and tolerate social inequality. "Liberalism"  means a tendency to embrace change and reject inequality. Conservatives tend to  believe that strict divisions are an inherent part of life.  Liberals do not. Political parties evolve with time—Democrats were the conservative party 150 years ago—but the liberal-conservative split is typically recognizable in a country's politics. It's the fault line on which political cooperation most often breaks down.

Disagreement has incapacitated American politics and the  collective ability to get things done. Republicans spent the last two years sabotaging the U.S. House. Simple generalizations of issues  have pitted both groups apart because they either refuse to see the middle ground or they are entrenched in their beliefs. For example, when a Democrat say he/she is "pro-choice," a Republican will say, "then you are in favor of abortion."  It's either or...there's no middle ground.

The Republicans may not see that not only that a Democrat may prefer making her own choices but she also is not the "baby killer" that the Republicans perceive. When Democrats say, "let's enact gun control," the Republican would reply, "no one cannot take my gun away...this is my constitutional right."  In fact,  the Democrat just want assault rifles  and other weapons of war  banned or be kept away from irresponsible hands.

The  birth of the United States was inspired by the bold declaration that our God-given individual liberties should be preserved against government intrusion. And that was right, back then when the country was young and trying to "grow up" from its colonial past. But the United States of America has become a nation of many "nations" where a plethora of ideas emerged from this rich diversity that catapulted it into a world leader and once the  envy of the world, partly  because the  two parties used to be more cooperative and cordial in preserving the unity of these United States. Republicans and Democrats in the House reached across the aisle to work things out. There was a great deal of civility. And then a demagogue came, exploited the 'division'  with the help of entertainment networks that disguised as News, (and other social media outlets) preyed on the destitute and lonely who digested a lot of disinformation ( fake news and lies) and conspiracy theories that sowed distrust  A distrust so deep that finally led to the violent  January 6^th attack on the U.S. Capitol where our laws are debated and legislated. It was an assault not only on the U.S. Capitol, but also on democracy and its ideals.

With the presidential election just several weeks away, we may be seeing some kind of exit strategy from all these chaos. It is  heartening to see numerous Republicans finally deciding to cross party lines (unprecedented !) to endorse the Democratic presidential candidate. Former officials from the presidential administrations of Republicans  Ronald Reagan,  George H W Bush  were joined by some GOP members of Congress, former defense secretaries, former CIA and FBI directors and military generals.  They wrote and signed a letter that said: "We believe that the president of the United States must be a principled, serious, and steady leader. We expect to disagree with Kamala Harris on many domestic and foreign policy issues, but we believe that she possesses the essential qualities to serve as president."

The letter went on "We firmly oppose the election of Donald Trump as president for he promoted daily chaos in government, praised our enemies and undermined our allies, politicized the military and disparaged our veterans, prioritized his personal interests above American interests, and betrayed our values, democracy, and this country's founding document."

"His unpredictable nature is not the negotiating virtue he extols. To the contrary, in matters of national security, his demeanor invites equally erratic behavior from our adversaries, which irresponsibly threatens reckless and dangerous global consequences," the letter continued.

The  letter included a quote from former Vice President  Pence: "Anyone who puts himself over the Constitution should never be President of the United States."

With such unprecedented and bold statements from honorable Republican leaders, there's hope that the chaos we have been through will end,  and with God's help, the United States of America 🇺🇸 with all her imperfections and they are many, will again be that "city shining on a hill."

 

Noralyn Onto Dudt is hopeful that voters will be decisive in selecting a leader who is genuinely caring and passionate and one who puts the nation's interests above his/hers.