The Differences Between Republicans and Democrats This Election

The Differences Between Republicans and Democrats This Election:

Republicans are differentiating themselves from Democrats in only a few areas this election: national security, taxes and judicial selections. Thanks to Ronald Reagan, it's been the conventional wisdom for the last few decades that Republicans were stronger on national security than Democrats. But during the War on Terror, how do Republicans compare to Democrats in all the different aspects of national security?

The Republican centerpiece on national security is fighting the enemy “over there” so we don't have to fight them “over here.” President Bush argues that the war in Iraq is part of the War on Terror, and Al Qaida agrees. That should be good enough for anybody. There can be no doubt that we are fighting Al Qaida members in Iraq, and that some of those fighters would be elsewhere, possibly in the U.S., if we hadn't invaded Iraq and removed Saddam Hussein from power. But would that have been different if Democrats were in charge? Democrats voted nearly unanimously to give the President authority to invade Iraq. At the time of the invasion, Democrats were staunchly in favor of the war, and it seems very likely we would have invaded had a Democrat been President. We've also heard plenty of rhetoric about Democrats wanting to cut and run. John Kerry made an issue out of it. But the vast majority of Democrats voted against setting a time-table for withdrawal. Again, it seems likely that we would be fighting terrorists “over there” in Iraq even if a Democrat was President.

It's also conventional wisdom that Republicans are better at fighting wars than Democrats. Supposedly Republicans set better defined goals and don't allow politics to affect war fighting. Yet the most powerful military on earth and it's allies have been unable to defeat the Taliban after 5 years in Afghanistan, or defeat the 10,000 or so insurgents in Iraq after more than 3 years. How can this be? When U.S. troops had the Mahdi army surrounded in Najaf, instead of destroying the militia and killing or capturing it's leader, Muqtada al-Sadr, politics intervened, and the Mahdi army was freed to fight us again another day. And they fight us today. Al-Sadr's army is linked to Iran and is currently a major player in the sectarian violence plaguing Baghdad. Also, we recently saw pictures of over 200 Taliban fighters at a funeral in Afghanistan. The U.S. failed to attack them because they were next to a village, and those fighters lived to fight us another day. We can't win wars like that. President Bush has allowed politics to hinder the effectiveness of our military.

Another crucial aspect of national security during the War on Terror is border and homeland security. In this case, President Bush and Senate Republicans have joined with Democrats to fight every attempt to secure our southern border. We recently read the intelligence reports that thousands of Muslims posing as Hispanics have been captured crossing our southern border. Some were associated with Hezbollah. We know we capture only a small percentage of southern gate-crashers, but despite knowing this, President Bush still tried to redirect the money for the token 700 mile fence authorized by Congress. Republicans' resistance to securing our borders is as pathological as Democrats'. 5 years after 9/11, we are still checking less than 5% of shipping crates entering the U.S. for radiological signatures.

One area where Republicans can differentiate themselves from Democrats is on intelligence gathering. President Bush implemented a program that allows the NSA to eavesdrop on terrorist calls into and out of the United States. Democrats oppose this program, even though it's akin to General Washington reading intercepted correspondence between the British and colonists. We could never have won the revolution had Washington been forced to return those letters without first reading them. President Bush also has it right on tracking financial transactions of terrorists, interrogation and military tribunals. Water boarding and loud music are not torture, though several Republicans originally joined Democrats in fighting effective interrogation tactics. Enemy combatants have never had a lawyer. Democrats are changing that thanks to the liberal courts.

While the Republicans are better on the intelligence gathering aspects of national security, and that is a big deal, we have no reason to believe they're better in any other aspect.

President Bush is taking credit for his tax cuts and the effect they have had on the economy, and rightly so. His timely tax cuts shortened what could have been a devastating recession after the dot.com bust and 9/11. More recently his tax cuts have produced a strong economy, low employment, and real compensation increases. But once again the difference between Republicans and Democrats is small. The difference is percentage points in the income tax that's devastating manufacturing jobs in this country. It's the difference between left and far-left, while mainstream America is in desperate need of real tax reform. The embedded taxes in every product produced in this country make them uncompetitive in the global market. Michigan is hemorrhaging jobs, and General Motors and Ford can't compete. We can no longer build our own tanks, planes, ships and satellites without imports. For the first time in history, Republicans had 6 years to effect real tax reform to solve this problem. Since Bush's tax cuts enabled this economy, imagine how wonderful real tax reform would be for the economy. Instead Republicans debated a few percentage point changes to the Democrat's income tax, further entrenching that destructive tax in our society.

Republicans shine in one crucial aspect of government: judicial appointments. President Bush has done a fantastic job of judge selection. John Roberts and Samuel Alito are not activists for either political persuasion. Both understand the limited power of the court and the limited power of all of government as defined by the clear language of the Constitution, and both respect the democratic process. It's to Democrat's eternal shame that they failed to support both these men and have filibustered others.

The most important issue of this election isn't even being discussed. That's because Republicans no longer even pay lip-service to being the party of smaller government. The most fundamental issue in every election is whether power belongs to the people, as the constitution acknowledges, or if power belongs to the government. In the Senate, Republicans have openly declared that earmarks are good for the party – spending Americans' money on pork for their own benefit, just like Democrats. Both parties think power belongs to the government and government takes care of the people. This idea is as disgusting as it is anti-American. From the McCain/Feingold abomination to No Child Left Behind to the prescription drug entitlement, Republicans have spent more money and taken more freedom from Americans just like Democrats, who only complained these programs didn't go far enough. Again, the difference between the parties is only a matter of degree.

Other than judges, which are a very big deal, and one aspect of the War on Terror, the differences between the parties are very hard to discern. Recently, Republican pundits have patronized their readers; some even call their readers stupid for not wholeheartedly supporting Republicans. It seems to me they should be chastising Republicans. After all, it's Republicans who have abandoned the voters, not vice-versa. It's Republicans who brought all these problems on themselves, and it's Republicans who can solve them. Republicans can acknowledge their mistakes and adopt policies supported by voters and truly differentiate themselves from Democrats. Policies like smaller government, real tax reform, strong defense of our borders, and freeing our troops to destroy our enemies and return home victorious. The voters aren't the problem, it's the Republicans.