Philosophies of the Republicans and Democrats

by Seth Mandel
November 24, 2010

http://www.weeklyblitz.net/1112/philosophies-of-the-republicans-and-democrats

An interesting way to compare the underlying philosophies of the Republican and Democratic parties in the U.S. is to examine whom they associate with the concept of "hope for the future."

President Barack Obama ran on the concept of "hope," and Democrats eagerly nominated him to be their party's standard-bearer. But Obama's version of "hope" was a candidate with no real experience¾not that that hurt his standing in his own party. In fact, Obama's stature only benefited from the fact that he was a symbol, not a political manifestation of ideas, experience, and principles.

The Obama presidency thus far, then, is an example of what happens when you rely on a symbol of hope; his reputation now is that of an ideological bully without competence, patience, or humility.

So it was enlightening to see the results of a poll by the new conservative news site, ConservativeHome USA. Its inaugural poll of conservative Americans included a question that offered five "new faces" of the Republican Party and asked which gave them the most "hope for the future." The winner of the poll, with 40 percent, was New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie.

Christie beat out new GOP Senators-elect Marco Rubio and Rand Paul, as well as young GOP governors Bobby Jindal and Susana Martinez in the poll. The reason Christie won explains a vast difference between the Republican and Democratic parties: Christie faced unproven vessels of hope, and won the poll. Democrats chose the vacuous candidacy of Obama over candidates with real experience.

Christie was a tough U.S. attorney before running for governor, and hasn't shed that toughness in office. He has vowed not just to clean up the state's notoriously corrupt Democratic government, but also to ease the stress on taxpayers and break the public unions' control over education.

The appalling cycle of public unions works like this: the unions spend money to elect a Democratic governor who promises to raise their benefits. The governor wins, and repays the unions for their support by increasing their salaries and benefits. The unions take that money, pocket some for themselves, and put some of it back into that governor's re-election campaign, and the cycle starts all over again.

The reason that has such a deleterious effect on the state's residents is because of the difference between private sector unions and public unions. While private sector unions can present their own challenges to a company's ability to compete in the global economy, they are still obtaining their salary and benefits from the owner or owners of the company¾that is, their money is coming from the source. The logic is basically sound: if I want to give my money to these unionized workers, well, it's my money to give.

Public sector unions do not work this way. Public sector unions get their money from the taxpayers, but the taxpayers do not have a say in the contract negotiations. So to take New Jersey's example, the previous governor, Democrat Jon Corzine, would "negotiate" with the public unions¾but they would both stand to gain from increasing the unions' share of taxpayer money.

One argument against big government is that it is human nature to be more careful with your own money or property than when someone else is picking up the tab. When taxpayers are picking up the tab, someone like Corzine isn't too concerned with how much he spends on the unions¾yet the more he spends (of our money) on them, the more he stands to gain from their political support.

You would think this would outrage voters, but until Christie came along and articulated the alternative, unions didn't face much opposition. That has changed, and Republicans around the country have, in an unprecedented way, waged a public battle with the unions based on Christie's successful strategy.

"Still, what we are seeing this year may mark a historic shift in American politics," Steven Malanga wrote in the Wall Street Journal. "If candidates around the country can repeat Mr. Christie's strategy of winning office by taking on public unions, we could be witnessing a change akin to what happened in the late 1970s, when tax revolts in a handful of states created a nationwide momentum that eventually elected Ronald Reagan. The early 21st century version of tax rebellion is a head-on collision between overburdened taxpayers and public-sector unions. The many signs of union weakness suggest that after decades of expanding power, government-worker unions may have finally met their match."

Thus far in office Christie has won battles over property taxes, education, and overspending¾even winning Democratic support for some initiatives because of their popularity with voters. This is why Christie won that poll among conservatives, and why he won a Tea Party straw poll earlier this year. Ideas are great, as are promises to do the right thing. But if you can defeat powerful opponents in the Democratic Party in a deeply liberal state, and do so in defense of Main Street Americans, you are living proof that conservative values can succeed anywhere.

And Americans stand to gain much if a Republican Party that puts its faith in people like Chris Christie continues to win at the polls.

Seth Mandel is the US correspondent of Weekly Blitz

Related Topics:  Op-Ed and Editorial receive the latest by email: subscribe to weekly blitz's free mailing list