Politics:
Ryan re JoT Re Ryan Re JoT Re Ryan's Take on Bush

Two years ago in November, I posted a message to this guestbook which described my basic theory of the differences between the Democratic and Republican parties. JoT responded in part to that message in an essay titled "Were the Liberals Right?"

This message is a long-delayed response to that essay.

To prepare my rebuttal, I have engaged in quite a bit of research. Primarily this involved reading a number of recent historical and biographical works which touched on the specific issues I need to address to make my point. For the curious, this bibliography included, in part: "Founding Brothers", Joseph J. Ellis, "Freedom from Fear: The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945 (Oxford History of the United States, Vol 9)", David M. Kennedy, "Lies My Teacher Told Me : Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong", James W. Loewen, "No Ordinary Time: Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt: The Home Front in World War II", Doris Kerns Goodwin, and the now-three volume biography of LBJ, "The Years of Lyndon Johnson", Robert A. Caro.

To restate my original thesis as context for my comments regarding JoT's essay:

I believe that the modern Democratic party bases its policies on the theory that people are inherently evil, and that without group action to check these evil tendencies, individuals will usually act in ways that damage society as a whole. I believe that the modern Republican party basis its policies on the theory that people are inherently good, and that when left to a series of individual choices, the sum of those choices will be actions which benefit society as a whole.

I believe that the current political system in the US is becoming more polarized as a result of these mutually incompatible theories as they root deeper and deeper into the basic philosophies of the two parties, and frankly, I think this is a very good thing. When I was a child, my theory of politics was that the two parties were fundamentally identical, and that the only differences between them were the actual people they proposed for office rather than a philosophical difference that could be clearly stated and debated. I did not know it then, but the changes that have manifested in the two modern parties were all very much at work, but had not fully expressed themselves to my inexperienced eye.

I believe it is impossible to debate effectively the ebb and flow of "success" of the Democrats and Republicans across the 20th century, because neither party was able to sustain a consistent philosophy or world view for more than about 25 years at a stretch. I'm certain that a Democrat and a Republican from 1904 who were introduced to the politics of 2004 would consider both parties to be radical socialist parties who had become effeminate, faithless, unpatriotic supporters of pornography and miscegenation. Of course, if we were confronted with unreconstructed 1904 pols, we'd probably find them isolationist sexist racists who relied far too much on the bounty of providence and quack science as flimsy rationale when drafting policies that almost always supported businesses and the richest of the rich at the obvious expense of the poor. In other words, the Democrats and Republicans of today have more in common with each other than the Democrats or Republicans of 1904. As a body politic, Americans have "evolved" substantially in 100 years towards a more egalitarian, more scientifically informed, and more humanist world view.

In my reading, it has become somewhat clear to me that for the purposes of this discussion, we have to divide the century into three portions. The first portion dates from 1901 to 1945. During this period of time, the country as a whole went through more tumultuous social, political, technological and economic change than it had since its founding, although in many cases it would take another 30 years for the results of those changes to be fully integrated (no pun intended) into society as a whole. From 1945 to approximately 1970 the two parties were more alike than they were different as both parties tried to make sense of the post-war/cold-war world and the incredible changes that were forcing themselves through the American commonality. During this period, both parties were motivated primarily by the desire to slow change down and channel it productively, and the debate was not that change should happen, but how fast, how far, and how disruptively it should take place.

During this entire period of time, from 1901 to 1970, the American System was controlled in ways large and small by a small group of elite, wealthy, white, southerners. These individuals could not implement large changes by themselves, but they had the power, via control of the Senate, to use the tools of the Senate to channel debate away from the issue that primarily motivated them, which was equal rights for black Americans. To keep and maintain this power, the southerners made numerous political arrangements which shaped the laws that could be passed and the laws that could not be passed, and in no small measure, are responsible for the rise of the activist judiciary, the imperial presidency, and the almost bloodless transition from segregation to desegregation that actually took place (albeit against every effort those southerners could muster in every forum where they could raise the fight).

Because the Republican party was responsible (in southern eyes) for the secession of the southern states, and because a Republican president had imposed martial law and reconstruction on the south, no Republican could rise to power in the south, and southern politicians were almost exclusively Democrats. These Democrats were fiscally conservative, small-government, isolationists who favored high tariffs and low taxes. Perversely, in much of New England, Democrats could not be elected due to historical voter patterns tightly linked to the Civil War, and Republicans dominated state representation. These Republicans were liberal, supported civil rights, believed in the social policies of the New Deal, were internationalists, and supported high taxes to fund government programs.

During the post-war period, the government was controlled by Democrats who had more political sympathy for most of the Republican party than their own party, and featured a large block of Republicans who had more sympathy for the Democratic party than their own party. There were essentially 4 political power blocks: Republican-Democrats (New Englanders), Democrat-Republicans (Southerners), Republicans (Westerners) and Democrats (Midwesterners).

This situation started to collapse as the Great Migration began. During WWII, many blacks had left the south in search of better paying factory jobs in the north. After the war, this migration increased as millions of blacks left their homes and moved north, swelling the sizes of the great northern cities. As population shifted from an agrarian society to an urban society, the patterns of votes changed as well. By the latter half of the 1950s, political strategists in both parties were aware that courting the "black vote" was going to be the pivotal issue in the next decade's elections. The Democratic party was first to institutionalize this change, lead by FDR and Truman's stands on civil rights. By the end of the 1960s it became hard to get elected in the south as a Democrat if you supported segregation, so the segregationists changed parties and became Republicans. Likewise, the New Englanders who had all along felt more in common with the New Deal and Democratic policies were able to shift their party allegiance as well. By 1976, the nation had begun to sort the politicians into Republican-Republicans and Democrat-Democrats. The rise of Ronald Reagan and a clear philosophic message for Republicans forced Democrats to respond with a reformulated philosophy as well (although during the Clinton years, that philosophy was neutered in the quest for a "moderate" middle position that offended nobody and just won elections even if the result was that no legislation could actually get passed or implemented by the winning politicians).

Now, let me return to the centerpiece of my argument.

Modern Democrats and Republicans are no longer hobbled by the southern states desire to preserve segregation at all costs. As a result, much of the apparent illogic in our political system is sorting itself out, and the actual policies of the two parties are free to operate according to more logical rules than before.

Democrats draw their base from people with a long history of being disenfranchised. That history taught those people that the system was biased, and could not be fixed by direct action. Only the federal government had the power to redress those grievances and right the wrongs.

Republicans draw their base from people who have the experience of using work and education to support and improve a lifestyle of richness never before enjoyed by any people anywhere ever in the history of the world. Their family history teaches them that hard work, education, and perseverance leads to direct personal benefit, and the state, to the extent that it has been a part of their lives, has mostly been a hindrance rather than a help.

Both of these family histories are accurate, in that they reflect the actual experiences of real people, real problems, and real solutions. The issue that confronts both parties today is "how will we shape the future?"

The Democratic party, based on its philosophy that people are evil, sees a future of bureaucratic regulation where "choice" replaces "freedom". The Democratic party believes that the good things in life should be provided to all citizens, and that they should be de-monetized, because monetization is one of the ways individuals express their evil.

The modern Democratic party stands for the following:

1) A graduated tax base where the percentage of each dollar paid in taxes increases the more dollars a person earns.

2) Socialized healthcare with a single-payer system (i.e. a Canadian/European system)

3) Socialized support for the old and the infirm at a level providing for a middle-class standard of living

4) A set of international laws to which the US would cede sovereignty in a mutual framework with Europe and parts of Asia to promote standards for labor, trade, the environment, law, and the use of international force

5) The use of the tax code to incent certain kinds of behavior and to disincent others

6) Unrestricted tort liability for companies and individuals

The Republican party, based on its philosophy that people are good, sees a future of slowly decreasing regulation in a framework where "Freedom" is more important than "Choice". The Republican party believes that a basic framework of equal access to education and employment is sufficient to allow each person to use their own capabilities to achieve success or fail, and that the best way to measure success or failure is via the capitalist system.

The modern Republican party stands for the following:

1) A tax code that places the smallest burden possible on each taxpayer while financing the operations of the government

2) A free market for healthcare including government supported options and free market options, and the inherent acceptance that some people will get better care than others if they can pay for it

3) The principle that America's power enables America to take any action it deems necessary to advance its interests regardless of international constraints

4) The concept that individual liberty can be limited, but only in the interests of public safety and welfare

5) A belief that short term deficits can be retired by sustained long term growth in the economy

Currently, I think it would be fair to say that the Democratic party espouses support for a limited selection of civil rights issues that are more in keeping with the Republican outlook (specifically: sex and drug issues). I also think it would be fair to say that Republicans express an outlook for a limited range of international issues that are more in keeping with the Democratic party (WTO and NATO in particular).

The two parties are clearly still "sorting out" their different portfolios. One issue that I believe will become significant in the next several years is the difference in voting habits between people who attend church and those who do not. Studies are showing that churchgoers are more likely to be Republican than Democrat, but one of the strengths of the Democratic party has been the tightly linked church-community groups in predominantly black areas of the south and inner city. Another issue that will be significant is the rise of the latino population as voters with more and more power. Socially, Latinos are more likely to sympathize with Republicans, but their family histories are more in line with those experienced by many Democrats. This creates a powerful tension in the latino community that makes it difficult to predict how those votes will swing.

As the parties continue this "sorting out" process, I suspect that the Democrats will find they represent a minority of the American political community. It is something of a truism that in an American election 30% vote Democratic and 30% vote Republican and the other 40% are who decide the election based on which candidate they decide is more "moderate". In 2000, both candidates appeared moderate, and the swing voters appeared to split. But a more detailed analysis (the "red state/blue state" examination) shows that voting patterns were very unified across the country. Voters in large urban areas voted Democratic, and in suburban and agricultural areas they voted Republican. This tells me that there's a new block of voters emerging who will determine future elections, and I believe those voters represent a post-civil rights, post-feminist demographic who care more about economic freedom than they do about fixing persistent social problems. Those voters, in the south and the midwest constitute a new block who will consistently vote Republican, edging the total who "always vote Republican" closer and closer to 50%. The Democrats will find that their philosophy gains strength in the very urbanized states of the East, upper midwest and California, but the handful of "swing states" that split between urban and suburban populations will be hard to win due to the nature of the Democratic primary system. After running close to the "Democratic Philosophy" to win the nomination (and pandering to 30% of the electorate), it will be hard for the nominee to move towards the center and attract swing state voters who want a "moderate".

I think that by and large, the thesis of JoT's article "Were the Liberals Right?" is accurate. "Liberalism" in the sense that term means equality, fairness, and accountability has clearly triumphed over the other options that were available in the American political system in 1904. But since both parties have become "Liberal" in that sense, the debate must now shift to a question of implementation. And in that shift, I believe the Republican party will ultimately prevail, forcing the Democratic party to change its philosophy or die. Maybe in 50 years we'll have two parties who are both focused on personal empowerment, and the debate will have morphed into a question of how much empowerment is too much.

—Ryan S. Dancey
January 2004

JoT

other responses to "Bush"

Were the Liberals Right?: a parallel topic

top