Introduction
The differences between the democratic regimes and the republicans have been described using all sorts of criteria. Points of references have ranged from ideologies to actual policy implementation. The democrats are now considered to be leftists, progressive, constitutional and realistic. For the same values, the republicans are considered to be rightists, conservative, patriotic and ideal. Democratic regimes have been marked by social handouts, liberty, security and democracy. Republicans have been marked by corporate handouts, conformity, war and theocracy (Demsunite, N.D.). These differences have influenced the two parties’ performance and ultimate legends.
Backed by the evidence of over ten administrative phases and over fifty years of observation, one conclusion becomes self evident: the democrats are much better than the republicans. And it doesn’t really matter which aspect of the administration is being looked at. Where the republicans have shown inconsistent performances between different administrations, democrats have more or less stuck to their distinguishing principles, and excelled while at it. Their performance has in particular been vivid on the economy. And while on the same line, their administrations have consistently shown lower levels of unemployment.
The evidence for this point of view is supported regardless of any attempt at modulating the data. Take out the best and worst performing presidents over the last ten administrations, and the democrats come out tops (Steve, 2005). It can be argued that the presidents have little to do with an administration’s performance. But such an argument would be turning a blind eye to facts. Any administration regime is heavily influenced by the person at the top. The general public actually judges a regime based on what is known about the president. So the president is a critical aspect of how well or bad an administration is running. Yet, as already stated, presidents have not changed the glaring facts that favor democratic regimes over republicans.
Wealth sharing
An irrefutable fact is that democratic regimes tend to foster a more equitable wealth sharing between the rich and poor. Under democrats, the lower 20% of the population tends to match the income growth (in terms of percentage) of the top 5%. The actual figures are 2.63% per year for the poor and 2.11% for the rich. Compare this with the average income growth of 0.6% amongst the poor and 2.09% for the rich under republican regimes (Steve, 2005). Clearly, Republican administrations tend to cater unfavorably for the interests of the rich. The vast majority of the population (95%) thrives better during democratic regimes.
The differences don’t stop there. Apparently the citizens themselves have split down the middle in terms of their national interests. And for the common man, it seems like the democrats have their best interests at heart. Republicans tend to view more for the interests of the elite. This has in particular been exhibited during campaigns for the labor rights of the working class. In 2001 for example, the United Food and Commercial Workers Union found that 206 democratic congressmen out of a possible 261 unanimously voted in favor of the worker’s rights. 232 republicans out of a possible 269 voted against it (John, 2002). The implications are clear: the republicans were against the working class within the country. Woe unto the labor class during republican regimes.
Elections
The elitist nature of the republicans becomes even more vivid during elections. Democrats tend to get a higher fraction of the votes from the seemingly downtrodden: the working class, women, and the minorities (African-Americans and Hispanics) (Joseph, 2008). They are viewed by these groups to be better advocates for equitable working environs, for civil rights, for republican freedom and so on. On the other hand, the Republicans tend to get more support from big business owners and any other interest group active against policies that might level the field between the rich and the poor (John, 2002). Over half a century of evidence supports this claim: voters have consistently fallen into those broad interest categories during election periods. The ultimate post-election effect, of course, is a widening gulf between the rich and the poor during republican regimes, and a narrower one during democratic regimes.
The differences between the democratic and the republican approach to issues have made them to be called the “mommy party” and the “daddy party”. A perceptive observer can’t help drawing the connection between the traits of the parties and their human analogues. The democrats have stuck to their laid down principles over the years, more or less. The republicans, on the other hand, have been so flexible with theirs that it is doubtful whether they actually had principles in the first place (Michael, 2005). In a sense, it is like they have been unfaithful to their spouses, the principles – a distinctly paternal attribute.
Personal freedom
Another point on which the Democrats seem to excel better than the Republicans is on personal freedom. Democrats have been termed as social liberals- encouraging personal freedom and responsibility. On sensitive issues like abortion, democrats have distinctly respected individual choice, even in the face of cultural and moral backgrounds. The general trend is towards a less invasion of the individual by the government. On the other hand, Republicans can be considered to be social conservatives. They tend to encourage government influence over the individual. Moral issues are seen to be a prime focus of the legislature, and hence the government. And on any sensitive, the republicans tend to stick to the traditional ways of dealing with things (Demsunite, N.D.). While this may provide stability at some level, it also shows a lower level of adaptability to changing environs.
Entitlements
Ironically, while the republicans are willing to deal with the moral concerns of the citizens, they tend to shy away from supporting the general public in terms of social amenities. These include welfare, healthcare and social security. The republicans tend to outsource these responsibilities to the private sector, stating that they will be better managed then. The democrats, on the other hand, integrate these social amenities, called entitlements, into the government programs. The democrat’s rationale is that the private sector, while efficient, has the potential of being unstable in the long run. Corporate greed can also ruin the delivery of such services by the private sector (Demsunite, N.D.). And in a sense, outsourcing these entitlements would be running away from the financial responsibilities that they come with. That’s what the republicans do.
Environment
Republicans also shrug off the responsibility for the environment. The most remarkable evidence for this was when they voted against the Kyoto protocol. According to them, any policy that forces the government to regulate its own companies’ impact on the environment will hamper that government’s competitiveness on the global scene. While they appreciate the importance of the environment, they advocate for self regulation by the companies. Any further intervention by the government is seen as unnecessary government expenditure. Democrats view the environment as a critical investment, and actively seek means of conserving it. They have in the past formed policies that give tax credits to companies making the effort to reduce environment degradation. They have also formed green energy policies over the years- whereby renewable energy sources are promoted (Demsunite).
War
Another key point of difference between the two is on their perspectives to war. To the democrat, war is a cost. To the republican, it is an investment. This difference has resulted in all manner of consequences, over the years. Republicans, on the main, have always considered war to be a valid, first option, when international relationships become strained. They have no reservations at all about sacrificing long-standing international alliances in order to maintain their supreme status in the global scene. Ultimately, they are more likely to result to war than the democrats. The democrats are not opposed to war though. They perceive it as a valid option, but to be used only as a last result, if diplomacy and other approaches fail. To them, international alliances are of prime importance, and are to be fostered whenever possible (Demsunite, N.D.). Over the years, this has made the democratic regimes perform better on the international scene in terms of popularity.
The economy
Republican’s values are not unique. They are but a distillate of mankind’s most basic goals: prosperity, comfort and so on. They oppose unemployment and dislike inflation. And like everybody else, they don’t like paying taxes. However, a problem arises when these goals are given a higher importance than other equally critical issues like equality and the environment. The result is an under-utilized, biased government structure that is highly inefficient. For example, over the last half century, federal spending under republican regimes has gone up by an average of 60 billion dollars. The spending under democratic regimes has only gone up by 35 billion dollars for the same time period (Michael, 2005).
Probably the only feather in the republican’s hat is the fact that they actually do cut taxes. Taxes tend to go up more during democratic regimes. But is this really a positive aspect of the republicans? When taxes are cut, the immediate effect is a reduction on government revenue. Sometimes, the republicans argue that this reduction will ultimately stimulate the economy, and level off. It is not clear how this is supposed to happen, but decades of evidence don’t seem to support this.
An even more cryptic rationale for cutting taxes is that it will reduce spending. Here, the cold hard facts from the Economic Report of the President clearly depict a different scenario. Government spending rises faster under republican than under democrat regimes. Republicans simply sink deeper into debts. For example, since 1960, the annual government debt under republican regimes has averaged about 130 billion dollars. Compare this with the democratic debt of 30 billion dollars for the same time frame. And while the republican debt has been growing by about 36 billion per year, the democratic debt has actually been shrinking by 25 billion (Michael, 2005).
Conclusion
Faced with all the above facts, one can’t help seeing the superiority of the democratic regimes. In fact, the question that remains is how the Republicans have managed to still be a formidable force up today. The answer to this is complicated – a mixture of personal ambitions and conservative mindsets by some in the population. But as already shown democrats have managed to develop a system that will withstand the test of time. Republicans, on the other hand, will need to radically change some of their policies, if they are to remain relevant. But as matters stand, the ratings for the democrats continue to rise.
Works cited
Demsunite N.D. Democrats vs. Republicans. 2009. Web.
John Owen 2002 Democrats vs. Republicans. Web.
Joseph Crane, 2006 Democrats and republicans: The perspectives Dewey P. S. pg 211-216.
Michael Kinsley Democratic Superiority, by the numbers The Washington Post, 2005.
Steve Benen featuring Hilzoy: Political Animal. Washington Monthly, 2005. Web.