Stoopid Stuff

(Re) Stating the Obvious

At the most fundamental level, what is the difference between the Democratic and Republican parties? Certainly, one could go into each of the larger issues of our time, identify the positions of each of the parties and reach some kind of conclusion about the overarching political theory that brought them there. But that would be slippery, and subject to much debate. It seems that there should be a single basic tenet that informs the belief systems of the two parties, a "Standard Model" of American Politics.

I've always said that the difference in between the two parties is their belief in what the role of government should be in the lives of citizens, and that's true, but I think we can refine it a little more than that. At the most basic level, then, where does the symmetry break in political theory?

I submit it is the way each party sees the role of the government in delineating and guaranteeing the rights of citizens that forms the basis for the two political viewpoints.

When the Democrats talk about rights, they talk about them is a positive manner. That is, they try to use the power of government to clearly describe what it is the people CAN do, and to make certain that neither government nor any other entity can impinge upon those rights. From the basic Bill of Rights, the right to speech, to assemble, to worship, even when it a more negative expression of rights, such as in the fourth amendment, it is expressed as a guarantee to the people as in:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated."

This is actually a case of the Government choosing to limit it's own power, but it is phrased as an affirmative right guaranteed to the people. Later on, the Democrats supported other guarantees, such as the right to an abortion, the right to be free of discrimination, the right to an education. It is fair to say that the Democrats view a primary role of government as guaranteeing a broad set of clearly delineated rights to the people and then enforcing that guarantee.

The Republicans, on the other hand, view rights from a diametrically opposed position. They feel it is the governments role to limit civil rights, to define them rigidly rather than broadly, and to create a system whereby a persons access to rights and liberties can be challenged. They also see the government's role as punishing people for overstepping their rights, and enforcing the limitations they have placed on those rights.

Abortion and marriage are two obvious examples, but many others can be found. It is exclusively Republicans who call for the punishment of journalists who write stories with which the disagree, calling the writers traitors or worse. It is the republicans, while decrying the lack of freedom of expression in countries that impose limits on their Christian citizens, who seek to limit the ability of others, particularly Muslims, from practicing their own religion.

It is these opposing views regarding human and civil rights that forms the basis for all the political thought and belief structures that follow. As a self-described liberal, I have a difficult time understanding why someone would choose a political belief system built upon imposing limits on the rights of your citizens, and attempting to find a mechanism for punishing those who believe differently from you. In a sense, we are prisoners of our basic political beliefs. For example, a large part of me would like to see more stringent gun control. But that would require, ultimately, putting unreasonable limits on a right guaranteed in the constitution, and that is a risk I simply am not willing to take.

posted by mikey @ 3:22 PM