Republican and Democratice Party Conflict Unending
68Republican and Democratic Party Conflict Unending
Following the shellacking of the Democratic Party in the midterm elections, it appears that the Republican Party has clearly won the day. But in reality the two parties are still engaged in an unending conflict as to which way to lead the country—the conservative or the progressive route. Republicans seem to want to turn the clock back to a point in time that match their comfort zone, and the Democrats seem to want to turn the clock forward to a point that matches their progressive agenda—innovation, investment, and middleclass values. In essence, the midterm elections are over, but the conflict continues—and will continue far into the future. It is a conflict deeply embedded in party philosophy.
The conflict between the two parties is a conflict between political philosophies. The philosophies themselves are in conflict because they are opposites. Therefore, those of us who buy into either philosophy buy into the conflict. The extent of the conflict, however, depends upon the degree to which we commit to the philosophy.
Some people commit to one philosophy or the other because they sincerely believe the principles are absolute, and, as a result, they become willing to engage in unethical behavior, unlawful acts, and even violence to advance the philosophy. Others commit to one philosophy or the other and yet believe, as postmodernists do, that there are no absolutes. They commit to the principles, but they are not willing to engage in unjust and unethical acts if they loose a battle. To use a sports analogy, they are not just good winners; they are also good losers. They loose with grace, and just prepare and wait for the next game.
Such people seek to bridge the gap between party extremes. They are usually pragmatic (seeking that which works), utilitarian (seeking the greatest good for the greatest number), and servant minded (seeking to serve all the people regardless of political philosophy). And they labor for the good of the nation, for the common man as well as big business, and at the same time promote and defend the Constitution of the Unites States of America.
Despite such people, the conflict between political parties is unending. The very nature of the two-party system is conflict. In fact, history shows that when parties organize, they organize around certain beliefs. For example, The Federalist Party, which controlled the federal government until 1801, was organized to support bankers and businessmen and to support fiscal policy. The Democratic-Republican Party denounced federalist policies, and the Federalist Party practically vanished in 1815 during “the era of good feelings” that followed the end of the War of 1812.
Thomas Jefferson and James Madison organized the Democratic-Republican Party, later called the Democratic Party, in 1800. The philosophy that guided the party grew out of its commitment to equality, promoting the widest range of social, economic, and political opportunities for all citizens, and ‘the belief that the federal government is the best tool for reaching these goals.
The Whig Party operated from the 1830s to the 1850s as an integral to the second party system. It was formed to oppose the policies of President Andrew Jackson. The party supported the supremacy of congress over the presidency and favored a program of modernization and economic protectionism. Because of deep divisions in the party over the expansion of slavery, the party was ultimately destroyed.
The Republican Party was established in the 1850s on a platform opposing slavery. Its great leader was Abraham Lincoln. The philosophy that guided the party grew out of a commitment to individualism and free enterprise. The Republican Party, therefore, generally believes that economic, social, and political stability can best be achieved with a minimum of federal government intervention. Republican administrations often grant more responsibility and power to state governments, advocate measures to balance the federal budget without raising taxes, support a strong national defense and an aggressive foreign policy, and promote legislation that limits federal responsibility for social welfare programs.
The Federalist Party and the Whig Party faded into history, but their political philosophies were transferred to one or the other of the two existing parties—Democratic or Republican. Their philosophies oppose each other. The two-party system of government with opposing philosophies, therefore, guarantees unending conflict.
Presently, the Democratic and Republican parties are engaged in conflict over their philosophies of Government. The conflict is more heated because of the extreme groups in each party—especially the Tea-Party group. The Democratic Party is battling to carry the country forward in terms of “innovation” and “investment,” and the Republican Party is focused on carrying the country back in terms of “repealing the Health Care law and reducing the spending levels. Republicans are linking their proposed spending reductions of $74 billion in cuts to President Obama’s proposed budget for the 2011 fiscal year to the request to raise the debt-ceiling limit, according to news reports. Some Republicans insist on $100 billion in cuts. If Republicans indeed link their purposed budget cuts to raising the debt-ceiling limit, it may shut down the government. If the $74 to $100 billion in budget cuts is made, the country could face an even greater recession—or depression—in my opinion.
Nobody knows how things will turn out over the next two years, but the hope for the America people is that the two parties will work together, and that both sides will “give a little and take a little.” That’s the story of compromise.
Extreme politicians of either party should not be allowed to create a loose-loose situation. The cost to the country is too great. This exceptional nation deserves better—a win-win situation. The philosophies that cause the conflict are not so sacred that they should be allowed to triumph over the best for the nation.
CommentsLoading...
awrencebeale
I ENJOYED YOUR INTERPETATION OF THE PRESENT SENARIO, the good guys against the bad guys under the leadership of President ’’I ’’ Obama.
You said ''cuts to President Obama’s proposed budget for the 2011 fiscal year to the request to raise the debt ceiling limit'' the President and the Democrats in Congress still don't get it, STOP THE SPENDING.
2009 $1.1TRILLION, 2010 $1.25 TRILLION AND 2011 $1.45 TRILLION ( PELOSI AND REID COULDN'T get a 2011 budget )
Check out where the stimulus money went at recovery.gov. $825billion and still 14.2 million out of work. Let's not forget that the Democrats have had majority control of Congress since Jan 2007, that’s the last 4 years.
sir slave
You need to wake up, the guy driving the car is our President.President Barak ''I'' Obama, as he always tells the American people '' the buck stops here '' is the driving force leading and driving our government off the cliff. An idiot with a one once brain knows that spending 4 times what you bring into the treasury will end in disaster. Here’s the biggest job of the week. The labor dept. reports unemployment is 9.0 %
and that there were 13,000+ new jobs. That’s what you call creative accounting, frazzle dazzle government style. Sounds like a pyramid scheme , maybe a maddoff project.
Lawrence
I agree with your hub but I also think that it masks the real problem of the parties.
First the goal of the parties is concealed under the terms they use to have the people identify with, progressive and conservative is as meaningless a pornography.
Calling Liberals the progressive party gives you the impression that they are for progress. Changing names is just image building and there is no substantive change in their ideology.
The result of these two parties over the last hundred years is culminated in the 1929 and the 2008 economic collapse. The country has gone from the American Dream to the American Nightmare.
The loyal party members are as big a part of the problem as the parties themselves. Until the sheep people of this country can change to use their independent intelligence the ride to total collapse continues.
It is just a fact that neither party improved the country when they were in control, and both parties together were ineffective in taking care of the country.
Since the two oil scam crises in the 1970s, no Congress or President has done anything to provide resources needed for a population expanding country.
The resources such as energy, fuel, water, food and transportation were just a few of the resources they ignored.
Presidnet Dwight D. Eisenhower in the mid 1950s did push through the National Highway System. There was some big dams built after the 1929 depression. So there were some resources that were expanded for the future but these examples are far and few between. This was done prior to the 1970s and certainly nothing has been accomplished since the Economic Collapse of 2008.
The voters need to play the person rather than the party. The candidate must know from the voter that it is not the party that will elect the candidate but the voter.
We have for the longest time voted for the lesser of two evils, and that has not worked out well for the country.
My suggestion is that we don't let candidates get into office and especially not stay in office unless they provide a real service to the country and the voters.
Getting into office the candidates need to contract with the voters that they will accomplish their election promises, When they run for re-election the voters will only look at their record and compare it with their contract. Only if the contract is met will they be able to make a new contract. They have to stand on their record.
sir slave 15 months ago
it is like the president said, you put the car in R to go backwards and D to go forwards!
too bad that partisan politics has overwhelmed reason on the other side of the aisle.