Republicans_and

As one Democrat said to another; "See, I told you the Florida Lt Gov. position was worth fighting for..."

Disclaimer: As I said in the introduction, I'm registered as a Republican,
it's just that I'm not sure anymore, what is the difference.

REPUBLICANS AND DEMOCRATS
Which way is up? Who's on first? Left or Right?

DISCUSSION:

The biggest problem with the concept of Republicans and Democrats is referring to these organizations as "political parties" which results in the creation of politicians. This is similar to asking someone if they want to grow up to be a weather vane.

Starting from the beginning, the creators of the Constitution did not envision the formation of political parties. If they had, they would have made it a crime. The original intent was for: a) people to emerge from the general population with a vision of a better world, b) convince his fellow citizens that his ideas are basically good, and c) the people would choose between everyone that emerged. This choice was intended to select the one person that most represented the vision and principles that each voter possessed. Thereby, the person elected would represent the greatest cross section of the population from that city, county, state, etc.

During the first election, the whole plan fell apart. Someone figured out that if he "organized" into a political party then he could control the greatest number of votes. Political parties are nothing more than an organization intent on control. Why? Never forget the amount of money that is involved and the resulting influence this much money can buy. So, now that there is a motive, what are the differences?

Republicans, Democrats and the independent parties all want pretty much the same thing on the lowest level. As an example: everyone wants health care for every man, woman and kid. The only question is how to provide it? A national program administered by the government, or require employers to provide coverage, or allow the states to develop programs, or let each person select a carrier of their own. There is a cost involved no matter which way you go and the question changes from how to provide the coverage to how to absorb the cost and this is where it gets interesting.
- If a national program is administered by the government then it is paid by taxes and the government creates yet another red tape layer.
- If employers are required to provide coverage, then the cost is paid by the employer and passed on to the consumer in higher prices. (oops, what about the unemployed?)
- If the states develop the coverage then no two programs will be the same and the state residency tests will become prejudicial.
- If each person selects his or her own coverage then it is still a matter of the consumer footing the bill, however, the choice can be made by the individual not the government. (oops, we are still dealing with everyone that doesn't have any money.)
- Lastly, what about the cost of treating non-citizens?

As I said, the format of the solution is the problem and the basis for the division between the parties. Democrats want the government to oversee a program, remember the dream of Hilary Clinton? The Republicans want the cost passed down out of government to the local or employer level; in other words, get the inefficiency of government out of the equation. Needless to say, there are a thousand positions in between.

Returning to the original question of the difference between the Democrats and Republicans, as I see it, the biggest difference is the impact of the federal government. The history of the parties can support this claim due to the people that were involved in the original parties.
- The Democrats:
      - See the role of the Federal Government as an all-encompassing influence that sets the standards the same for the entire nation. This is based partly on the inability of the states to develop programs that are similar in nature. The needs are the same across the country.
      - Want the Federal Government to oversee every aspect of every citizen.
      - Believe that private wealth is basically evil and should be redistributed to the give everyone the same chances. Wealth should not be a determining factor in the quality of life.

- Republicans:
      - See the role of the Federal Government as the manager of the purse strings but outside of developing or controlling programs that can be handled at the state, county or city level. Each program needs to reflect the specific issues of each state. The needs vary in minor degrees from locale to locale.
      - Want the chips to fall where they may.
      - Believe that private wealth is the result of personal initiative and the owner can enjoy the benefits of the wealth. The quality of life can be in direct correlation to the level of wealth.

So the primary difference comes down to the perspective of the viewer. The issue continues to be the level of influence that the political parties can create. Individual representatives are elected because of the ability of the voter to identify with the principles and platform planks implied by the candidate. Giving the candidate the benefit of a doubt, that the principles and platform implied are accurate, then the voter's choice is a general statement of the way that the representative will vote on each issue. The influence of a political party causes that representative to vote in the direction of the party instead of the personal principles of the candidate. The influence of the political party is based on the aid that can be provided to the candidate during those periods of election, no support means the other guy wins, lots of support means you win. The representative bends to the will of the party, which raises the question of who determines the will of the party?

Funny how we came full circle to the money at stake and the influence that money can buy.

Conclusion: Instead of trying to eliminate the political parties, first, there needs to be laws governing the ways that these parties influence the running of the government. No, it's not easy. Second, the public needs to reach a point where they cherish the right and ability to vote for representatives and turnout should reach into the 90%'s instead of the 60%'s. Third, journalists need to quit using news items as editorials and help the public to get a better understanding of the position and principles of a candidate. Fourth, the public needs to hold the elected officials to maintaining the principles and positions that got them elected, if they change with the wind then they need to be replaced. The Public deserves "North Stars" instead of "Weather Vanes."