Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 7

Democrat vs.

Republican Philosophy
Written by Ken Rutledge

With all of the hullabaloo and the media circus of the last election still fresh in our minds, many people are asking, "What are the differences between Democrats and Republicans?" Surprisingly, in todays political climate it is ever more difficult to separate the philo sophies of either party from the issues. More and more Americans find themselves voting for a candidate based on how they view a single issue or a group of issues rather than on the ideologies of a particular party. Sadly, the candidates, in an effort to market themselves to as many potential voters as possible further blur the party lines as a means to an end. In recent years, candidates, as much as they are able, distance themselves from the philosophical extremes of their own party and desperately try to portray themselves as moderate or middle of the road. As a result, voters become confused about generalities and are fearful of issues rather than being conserned about the style of government. This article is not meant to endorse either party, but rather to point out for you, the reader, the general differences between the Democrats and Republicans and why those differences exist. The Republican Party is the second oldest existing political party in the United States. When the Republican Party was created in 1854, it was considered a third party group by the Democrats and the Whig Party who were the major political parties of the time. The Republican Party was formed to oppose the Kansas-Nebraska Act that would have allowed the expansion of slavery into Kansas. The party name Republican was chosen over suggested Jeffersonian and Nationalist because the term republic denounced rule by the powerful economic or monarchical families and it represented the belief of civic virtue. At the time, the Republican Party represented opposition to aristocracy and corruption while encouraging progressive thoughts emphasizing higher education, banking,business and industry. Republicans vehemently defended their theory that the Free Market Labor was superior to slavery and was the very foundation of civic virtue and was at the cores of true American values. The Democratic Party is the oldest existing political party in the United States and it could be argued the oldest existing political party in the world. The Democratic Party came into existence in the early 1790s and evolved from several different political factions that opposed the fiscal policies of Alexander Hamilton. The Democratic Party was founded on the principles that citizens have a civic duty to aid the state and resist corruption of monarchism and aristocracy. They believed that the farmer best exemplified the virtue and independence from the corrupting influences of cities and government policies. They felt that state rights should not be violated by a centralized federal government. These early Democrats felt that a standing army and navy were dangerous to individual liberty, and should be avoided in favor of economic coercion such as embargoes and sanctions. So now that we know a little history about the two major parties, we can compare their current doctrines side by side. Republicans Democrats

Generally believe it is the responsibility of citizens to run the government. Believe in free market and strong international alliances. Believe in the right to bear arms. Favor the death penalty. Believes abortion is wrong. Believe that people determine their own destiny and do not support welfare programs. Believe in separation of church and state, but some on the far right feel it is ok to pray in schools.

Generally believe that it is the government's responsibility to care for the citizens. Believe in structured, regulated markets and minimal external entanglements. Believe in strong gun control. Oppose the death penalty. Believes in a womans right to choose. Believe that people should share economic burdens and generally support welfare programs for aid to the poor. Believe in separation of church and state.

It is important to note that especially in the most recent election, Independent voters, those who are not affiliated with either party were a much sought after commodity by both candidates. Independent voters traditionally dont want to vote for either of the major party candidates because they feel that both parties are defined by their most extreme factions and that that the core philosophies are basically the same for both parties. As for the Democrats, Independents view them as the far left liberals whose every maneuver is bent on political correctness, careful to never offend anyone, and the perception of failed socialist policies. The Republicans on the other hand are viewed as dominated by far-right conservatives who are determined to maintain and preserve, at any cost, the existing antiquated institutions under the guise of protecting traditional values. With the exception of certain issues, neither of the existing Parties presents an effective alternative choice to the other. In the last election, both Parties recognized the everincreasing value of the independent and third party voters. Unlike previous political campaigns where independent voters were all-but-ignored, both presidential candidates in this election desperately tried to appeal and sway Independent voters into their respective camps. For the first time in modern history, the growing number of disenchanted, independent voters, were sought and actually heard by both parties and the media. It is expected that the number of Independent voters in the United States will continue to grow, and as it does, so will Independent and Third Party candidates who will appeal to voters with more mainstream and moderate points of view and new solutions to address the issues problems facing our nation.

The two major parties, the Democratic Party and the Republican Party have made a consorted effort through legislation and carefully selected regulation to virtually eliminate outside interference from minor party candidates or Independent candidates. They have effectively secured and protected their positions of political power and control of our government. For average citizens, the only way to beat the current system legally is with an independent write in campaign that sweeps the polls with enough voter support to force recognition of that candidate under the law. Debates are a relatively new concept Face to face debates between political candidates are a relatively new addition to the way those seeking office present themselves to voters. Before the advent of radio and then live television a short time later, candidates utilized local newspapers, flyers and public appearances to get their message to the voting public. Getting information out to voters through printed media during a time when even the media itself had to be transported from town to town was extremely labor intensive and obviously much slower than today. It was not uncommon for candidates vying for the same office to never actually meet face to face. As a result, discourse between candidates was often far more exciting and generally involved much more mud slinging and more heated exchanges than we are accustomed to today. After all, if a candidate never had to actually meet a rival face to face, either could make any claim they wanted without much fear of reprisal. Voters that heard one candidate verbally attack another in their local newspaper or town square might have to wait days or even weeks to hear a reply from the other candidate, either in the form of a well crafted retort published in a local paper or through public appearance to personally rebuff the accusations and statements of his rival. Voters eagerly awaited and helped to fan these heated exchanges. Because voters had so much time to wait between responses, they too could share the facts, as they knew them at local gatherings and churches. Lively and sometimes angry exchanges between voters allowed everyone the opportunity to jump into the fray. The First Presidential Debate

What is considered to be the first true political debate in the United States was the Illinois senatorial debate between Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas in 1858. This well- publicized debate came about as a result of Abraham Lincoln following Stephen Douglas from town to town as Douglas campaigned around the state. Lincoln taunted and harassed Douglas from the audience during several campaign speeches. Lincoln felt he could get Douglas to show his stripes. The pair eventually took the stage together for three hours to debate the moral and economic quandaries posed by slavery. During this debate, there were no moderators and no panel to control the candidates or their interactions. The next fifteen election cycles passed without much public confrontation between the candidates. Like before, the candidate dialogue was generally delivered at separate events, and like earlier campaigns, usually in the form of campaign speeches.

New Technology, New Politics In 1948, the concept of the presidential debate would be tried again through a radio broadcast. Republican primary contenders Thomas Dewey and Harold Stassen would agree to present their differences to American voters over the airwaves and from the controlled environment of a studio. It is estimated that between 40 and 80 million listeners from around the country tuned into the radio broadcast of the two same party candidate's debate over outlawing communism in the United States. Both men were trying to secure the Republican Party's nomination as the presidential candidate. As families gathered around their radios, more people heard the messages offered by these two candidates than any other conversation in the history of humanity. Even with the enormous attention received by the candidates through the new media of radio, debates never really caught on. But, more and more Americans were buying televisions and this new way of sharing information, entertaining and generating revenue would change everything. The first televised debate in 1952 was hosted by the League of Women Voters and included all of the potential candidates. The impact of The League of Women Voters presentation of organized debates would move the debate process from the outer fringes of campaign planning to what is now considered by many to be the main event for selecting our president.

Though it wasn't the first televised debate, the September 26, 1960, debate between Richard M. Nixon and John F. Kennedy changed how candidates campaigned forever. For the first time in history, the two opposing party-nominated candidates for president of the United States were about to square off with television cameras trained on them. For Richard Nixon, this was a huge mistake. Inside the studios of a CBS affiliate in Chicago, Nixon felt like death warmed over. For more than a month he had been fighting a staff infection and had spent the two weeks prior to the debate in the hospital. Now, with the cameras about to roll, Nixon was pale, sweating, ten pounds underweight and felt terrible. When he arrived at the studio, the stage crew had painted the backdrop the same color gray as Richard Nixon's suit. Camera men were immediately concerned because Nixon was fading into the background compounding his sickly appearance. It appeared that things couldn't possibly get worse for Nixon until Senator John F. Kennedy arrived. Kennedy had just returned from a month long respite in California. He was tan, and looked well rested and physically fit. According to CNN, broadcast history records the "Great Debate" was viewed by sixty-six million people. Once again, history was made and records shattered. Never before had so many people been able to bear witness or been privy to watch a single live event. This new format, television had changed everything permanently. Viewer polls of the "Great Debate" showed that television viewers of the event clearly felt that John Kennedy was the winner. For those that listened to the debate on the radio, the majority polled felt that Nixon was the clear winner. The extreme differences in the appearances of Kennedy and Nixon during this historical event would teach strategists the importance of perception to a campaign. This revelation would make the visual impression of future candidates as important as the issues on which they ran.

After a series of four televised debates between Richard Nixon and John F. Kennedy, it was strikingly clear that politics would never again be only about issues and strategically smearing ones opponent. No longer would debates be for the benefit of a privileged few in a single room. Overnight, debates became a way to reach tens of millions of people, who tune in not just to listen to the candidates, but to watch them as well. Aesthetics was to become as critical as the spoken word. Future candidates with the ability to appear, and be perceived by the viewing and voting public as calm and in control would triumph over opposition that the public perceived as negative. A well presented, strong communicator could get his message to the masses quickly and relatively easily, but television would soon provide to the candidates what network broadcasters already knew. Television makes money! After the Kennedy-Nixon debate series, the concept of presidential debates took off like a bullet. With millions of Americans glued to their new television sets for set time periods, the revenue potential from advertising dollars was enormous. Naturally, the networks wanted to encourage the new public infatuation, so they saw to it that they adopted and were included into the equal time provisions in the Communications Act of 1934. The Communications Act of 1934 was primarily designed to provide equal time and equal space in radio broadcasts and newspapers. The legislation was designed to bring more control to the campaign process and to make it appear, at least to the general public, that playing field was leveled for all candidates. In theory, the Communications Act of 1934 seemed sound. However, what most people outside Washington didn't realize is that equal time provision was not just given to every candidate, equal time and space had to be provided only if it was purchased. The law sounded great to a population that still told little boys that in America they could grow up to be president. In reality, the law only required that radio stations, newspapers, and now television stations could not refuse to run paid advertisements for one candidate in an effort to unduly promote another. For lawmakers of the time, who like those today, tend to be from more affluent families with greater access to financial resources, the Communications Act provided another means by which to eliminate pesky or rebellious competition from candidates in the general populace who could not afford, or were unable to raise the money to get "equal time" under the law. For the networks equal time was a win-win proposition because equal time still meant someone had to purchase it, either through campaign funds or advertising sponsorship. Either way, the networks won. Lawmakers feared that the public infatuation with debates was a trendy fad. If that were the case, that same short-lived attention could be transferred to politicians who would be seen as "flashin-the-pan" candidates and could lose public attention and support in the same manner. For politicians, the flash-in-the-pan theory could be catastrophic. Something had to be done, and it was. Behind closed doors, party leaders began to negotiate amongst themselves about how to control the debates that the public now seemed to expect. In following campaigns, both Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon refused to participate in debates during their campaigns. Then, with the single stroke of his pen, after winning his 1968 bid for the White House, Richard Nixon used his presidential veto power to override a bill that repealed the equal time provision of the Communications Act of 1934.

Modern Debates Modern candidates continually search out means by which to exploit the equal time provisions, the debates and the debate process to work toward their own advantage. Modern day candidates in national elections use the equal time provisions of the law to their advantage by selectively releasing media bombshells much like they did in the days before mass media became electronic and instantaneous. By "digging up dirt" on an opponent and then releasing that dirt to the media outlets a candidate has the ability to, at least temporarily, obtain the upper hand by forcing the opposition to redirect energy and resources to go on the defensive, even briefly, from a well aimed political bullet. The idea is that people remember more of what they see than what they hear. In the past the decision to use such tactics could take days or even weeks to spread through the media and resulting rumor mill. When modern candidates decide to use this tactic, news is leaked out to the world and circulating in just minutes. Unlike their predecessors, political campaign teams of today don't have to wait days or even weeks to assess the damage from strategically leaked information. Within moments, both sides can simultaneously see responses from newsgroups, bloggers, party leaders and individuals. Damage control measures, even if not anticipated, go into effect instantaneously. It is of interest for readers to understand that more often than not, when these bombshells are released, candidates and their campaign staff are very careful to leak information from sources not directly related to their own campaign. They go to great lengths to distance themselves from the leak source and never want the public to see them as the "mud slinger."

During the 2004 election campaigns, Senator John Kerry, the Democratic front runner from Massachusetts was virtually defeated by a strategically leaked bombshell regarding events that transpired during the Vietnam War. Kerry had made his armed service record a big part of his campaign platform, asserting that he had "defended this country as a young man and that he would defend this country as president." Kerry shared stories through the national media. For Americans who didn't know much about John Kerry, his facial expressions, and visible physical responses seen on television, often gave the perception that he was a bit arrogant and boastful. Strategists worked tirelessly to change this perception. Rumors circulated during the campaign alleged that Kerry had intentionally misrepresented facts and circumstances that lead to his being awarded the Bronze Star, the Silver Star and three Purple Heart Medals. To spite of these rumors, the Kerry Camp successfully defended itself from what they called an all out Republican effort to smear him before the American people. To combat the allegations and accusations, the Kerry camp went so far as to authorize the release of Kerry's US Navy medical records to the public media, hoping that the information in those records would eliminate further interest in this matter. It didn't work. In the days prior to Republican National Convention held at Madison Square Garden, many polls showed the Democrat John Kerry to have a sizable lead in the traditionally liberal districts of New York and the surrounding areas. Republican candidates desperately needed to regain a foothold here. Just days before the convention began, a relatively unknown organization that

formerly supported Kerry turned on him. The Swift Boat Veterans and POW's for Truth announced to the world that John Kerry was unfit to hold the office of president because he had intentionally misrepresented facts regarding his actions in the Vietnam War and that he orchestrated the process to receive the medals he had been given. A statement of such magnitude and the accusations that followed, from a group that most perceived should have been supporters of one of their own. This dealt a devastating blow to Kerry's campaign. A concerted media effort, with back to back television appearances failed to dispel the allegations of his fellow servicemen. Attempts to blame the Republican political machine failed too. In subsequent Kerry appeared flustered, angry and hostile and remained on the defensive until his defeat in November 2004. By refusing to debate, any candidate could effectively cripple a proposed debate and many feel that is what John Kerry should have done. Unfortunately, the allegations against him forced him to appear and be continuously battered or be perceived as lying story teller the Swift Boat Veterans and POW's For Truth accused him of being.

Вам также может понравиться