Republicans I

I'm new at this American political thing, but I can see great similarities between the Democrats and Republican parties of the States and our own Liberal and Conservative parties over here. I really got interested in American politics during the mid term elections they just went through and the fact that there have been many articles written about the difference between liberals and conservatives.

The really neat thing about living in a free society is that we can argue with each other as to whose view point is correct and why the other side is 'out in left field', so to speak. The mid terms are now history and the Democrats are once more in control of the House after a 12 year absence. Not a long time when you consider Moses was lost for 40, but a lifetime in terms of the political landscape. Here in Canada, we have been under Liberal rule for most of the time since Confederation and are paying heavily for it. I can only hope the Americans knew what they were doing when they ousted the Republicans from the Senate and Congress.

So in the interest of gaining knowledge, I Googled the Republican web page and found that what I suspected was virtually true. This article will be too long to do it in one shot, so I ask for your indulgence and promise an on going series, both from the Republican and Democratic sides. I'm sure my prejudices will become apparent, but hey, that's what debate is all about, isn't it?

First we learn that the Republican Party is the more socially conservative and economically libertarian of the two major parties. It has closer ties to both Wall Street (large corporations) and Main Street (locally owned businesses) than do the Democrats and less affiliation with labor unions. A self evident truth. Although I belong to a union myself, I do tend to lean toward the right and, in all honesty, have become somewhat disillusioned with unions as a whole. When I see my union rolling over on issues that would have sent them to the sidewalks in protest a mere 20 years ago, I have to wonder if they're still in the business of protecting workers or looking after their own empires.

Republicans have a strong belief in personal responsibility, limited government, and corporate entrepreneurship . In his 1981 inaugural address, Republican President Ronald Reagan summed up his belief in limited government when he said, "In the present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem." There is nothing wrong with personal responsibility. Shucking it has led us to giving our kids a 'time out' rather than a quick smack on the butt when they misbehave. I have friends who would never dream of spanking their children and if it works for them, so be it. I have a hard time though in believing that in the middle of a temper tantrum in the main aisle of the local grocery store, you can 'talk it over' with a 2 year old and point out the error of his ways to him. I must be an exception to the liberal mind set because I was spanked as a child and didn't grow up to become an axe murderer. The lack of personal responsibility has led us to see an increase in the number of frivolous lawsuits that wrack our countries. Who, in this day and age, doesn't know about the dangers of smoking? Yet people still try to sue the tobacco companies for their lung cancer. Who doesn't know about the benefits of wearing a seat belt or bicycle helmet, yet people still want to sue the manufacturers for not belting them in or putting the brain-bucket on their heads? What about the twit who claimed he got his pecker caught between the seat and the bowl when he reached for some toilet paper? (I still don't know how he did this) Personal responsibility goes a long way and the sooner we get back to taking some, the better off we'll be.

The Democrats rail against the idea that Republicans want one religion to be prevalent across the country, one based on a Judeo-Christian background. They seem to conveniently forget that a free country accepts atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, Muslims, Jehovah Witnesses, Catholics, Lutherans, Hare Krishnas, etc. They trot out the Southern variety Republican who reflects a religiosity based in evangelical and fundamentalist churches that is less concerned with economics and more with moralistic issues, such as opposition to abortion and homosexuality as opposed to the Western brand of Republican who is largely libertarian, holding that pruning big government will allow civil society, and the virtues nourished by it and by the responsibilities of freedom, to flourish. This poses a problem the Democrats are loathe to admit to. While maintaining that they are more tolerant and open of other religions and nationalities, it is they who demand that God and prayer be removed from schools, citing the Southern Republicans and ignoring the very existence of the Western Republicans, and they who demand we have 'Holiday' trees, demand we remove Nativity scenes from our front yards and say 'Season's Greetings' instead of 'Merry Christmas'. It doesn't sound all that open minded to me.

The Republican Party believes that making law is the province of the legislature and that judges, especially the Supreme Court should not use their power of interpreting the constitution to create laws. I can sympathize on this. It is the duty of the government to make and pass laws. It is the duty of the judicial system to carry out those laws. Too often, here in Canada, we have seen judges interpret laws to their own way of thinking. I believe this is a major cause of our problem with repeat offenders carrying on in their own little ways, knowing full well the courts are toothless when it comes to dispensing justice. Agree with the law and follow it, or lobby to have it changed. No one benefits when one judge hands down a decision based on his own beliefs or interpretations of the law and the next hands down a completely different one based on hers. This is why we have Supreme Courts, so that we can go there to get final rulings and definite opinions. The law makers don't always get it right the first time around and if conflicts arise, the Supreme Court is there to straighten them out. That is why Republicans and Conservatives denounce judicial activism and have actively sought to block or remove judges who they see as being "judicial activists" (usually liberal) and to appoint judges who will practice "judicial restraint" (usually conservative). The Republican Party has generally been the more states' rights oriented of the two major parties since the 1930's, rhetorically supporting more devolution of power from the national government to the states. While we can all agree that some laws must be federal, most of them probably should be left to the individual state or province. What happens in New Brunswick does not necessarily happen in Alberta, just as what happens in New Jersey does not necessarily reflect on Arizona.

Republicans emphasize the role of corporate and personal decision making in fostering economic prosperity. They favour free-market policies supporting capitalism, economic liberalism and limited regulation. They believe private spending is usually more efficient than government spending. I can agree with this up to a point. The Americans, once having signed all the nice Free Trade Agreements, promptly went into a protectionist mode and made free trade free only if it benefitted them. Canada has hauled the US to court numerous times over the softwood lumber agreement and won every case against them. Every ruling against the Americans was appealed by them, and yet the verdict was always the same. The US was guilty of unfair trade practices. It has only been in recent months that the light seemed to come on for the Yanks and they realized what they wanted was not so much 'free' trade as 'fair' trade. One only has to look at the auto industry and its devastation at the hands of the Japanese to see that 'free' does not translate into 'fair'. In Canada alone, the Koreans sold 130,000 vehicles while we sold them a total of 400. I imagine the stats are much the same in the US. Is this 'free' or 'fair' trade?

Well, that's enough for session I. I'll let you digest all this while I get to work on session II. It's been an enlightening experience for me so far and I hope for you too. Stay tuned.