The US political system can be characterized by stability and conservatism. The two most popular parties are the Republican and Democratic, ruled here overbearing score a half century. This work will figure out what are the main differences between these political forces, and whether there is a significant difference between them. The Democrats are the representatives of the oldest of the currently represented in the US Congress, the political parties, which are the main principles of the liberal-socialist views. Founded in the first half of the 19th century, the movement perfectly adapted to any environment and is one of the key forces affecting the development of America. Barack Obama, the current US president, belongs to this party. The Republicans are the representatives of the second major US political party, the main principles of which are conservatism and liberalism. Its popularity and name of the political party contributed a lot to fight against slavery: it was her efforts this relic of the past had been overcome in the 19th century. In the future, the party is pretty cool belonged to the struggle for equal rights for African Americans, maintaining a conservative The Democratic Party believes that the federal and central government is the only institution capable of and that can find and give answers to the needs of its people. The Republican Party believes that the local government, that is the government in the states and the people themselves can take care of themselves and their society, and only the basic issues, such as national defense, foreign policy and trade should be in the hands of the federal government.
It is wrong tocate the Democratic Party left the Republican Party and right. In fact both parties are not located to the left or right but it is the latter that act within the two parties and over time, the left and right are more or less strong. The Democratic Party was a reactionary or/and populist party untill the presidency of Roosevelt. Between 1968 and 1992 it derived more to the left (without ever becoming socialist) but has refocused center right center with Clinton. The Republicans, the party originally Puritans Yankees, industry and the bourgeoisie, drifted conservatism and right since 1964 (except for 1989-1993). Geographically, the southern Democrats are often more right than Republicans in New England. New York Republicans are more left than those of Texas. According to Zupan, each local offshoot of the two parties can locate the party to the center, left or right. This explains why the Democrats of Alabama or Georgia Bush presidential vote and Republicans from New England or California vote Kerry (1991). Finally, the activists of the two parties are often more radical than voters or supporters.
It is very annoying indeed continue reading the opposition left/right as key to US political history. In France, it is the sovereignist opposition Jacobin against federalists Democrats it would refer, (with two people side left or right). We would have interest to clarify how the original values of the Democrats (refusal of a central state overwhelming the community and the individual, refusing control of expanding the business familial by a central bank, a customs charge, by anti-Slavery regulation (Butler, Karpowitz, & Pope, 2016)) lead them to rely on a sense hostile to industrial elite WASP protectionist monetarist North, trying to get the support of immigrants and pioneers, leading them to elect chairmen elitist anti promoting expansions territorial in favor of landowners.
The Democrats believe that in order that the unemployment rate fall, it is necessary to create more government programs that will help people find work, or to keep the work that they have. But, to create new and old development of existing programs need the money, and the money can either borrow or raise taxes. Their main idea is to make the federal government the arbiter of the national economy. They are based on Roosevelt's tactics, where the "National Society", working with the help of the government will be able to achieve prosperity. Democrats consider that this government knows better than the people where and where to invest and spend their money. The Republicans think that America was and is the economic power spot opportunities where the federal government should not intervene, nevertheless it has a responsibility to encourage job growth and business expansion, the growth of capital turnover. Republicans believe that tax cuts and international market development, as the development of legislation encouraging investment just to help develop the American economy. According to Bruzios, Republicans firmly adhere, if the state encourages the circulation of capital, and if it reduces taxes, then money will be released precisely on further successful development of the economy (1990).
When Ronald Reagan was elected president in 1980 America suffered from tax burden, which reached 70% (government plus state taxes) that meant that the average worker could not afford to purchase property, invest and improve their skills. From 1980 to 1988 taxes have been cut almost in half. The money, which had been released by the government back to the people, prepared America to one of unprecedented economic boom, which coincided with an explosion in the computer industry, which has led to an unprecedented increase in productivity and labor efficiency. Interest rates on loans for households fell from 18% to 9% and continued to fall. Security markets and stock exchanges opened access for all people, and now almost anyone can invest money. This is the real result of true capitalism in action. Today, Democrats boast of its achievements in the economy, but they never acknowledge that led to the concrete and undeniable success.
Our attention is more particularly drawn to a different approach to health care. The Democrats, led by Hillary Clinton want to centralize healthcare and put the federal government at the heart of our health care which implies the following provisions. The government proposes to work only with certain medicines suppliers of medicines and agrees to dictate terms of agreements between the hospitals and health care organizations. Democrats believe that government representatives have the expertise and the right to decide to whom, how and when to treat. All very seriously once again rests in the budget and expenses, which we guess, are borne by the taxpayers. There was a time in America, any patient could afford to invite their family doctor at home or go to a clinic, where he could get help and necessary medication, and then pay with your doctor, as agreed. The time has come when you cannot get sick for years, but you have to pay for insurance on health, because all of a sudden you get sick, no insurance will not take you to myself, and even worse, almost all insurance may abandon you no matter how old you are beaten their client as soon as they find out that your illness or surgery will pull with them a lot of money. To all this, the Democratic Party made sure that in any case, when you do not take care of as it should, your lawyer will be able to earn on your mountain very good money (Maisel & Berry, 2010). All this leads to a more expensive and more complex insurance plans for customer service. Republicans are in favor of competition among all health organizations, drug suppliers, equipment and services. They think that competition encourages the development of more rapid advances in the development of drugs and treatments.
It is important to say that both parties are very faithfully seek a way out. But while the Democrats are in favor of abortion and call it cares about women's rights, Republicans generally remember that in addition to pregnant women as it is a question of the living child. This question is a political and cultural issue, which builds and promotes America. Through Christians and conservative activists, most of whom belong to the Republican Party, America today is not the first country in the number of abortions. Thanks to the initiatives of President Bush and the Republican Party today is carried out more work on the education of children and the promotion of abstinence from sexual activity. The Democratic Party, on the contrary promotes normality of alternative lifestyles and promotes a policy of compulsory "education" of the people in the area of homosexuality, trans-sexuality, bi-sexual and other alternative ways of life (Kolodny & Dulio, 2003). For example, our former Governor Gray Davis, who is a Democrat, for four years, had signed a number of laws that promote alternative lifestyles and equate cohabitation to marriage. For example, we safely assumed that when Davis was once again chosen governor of California, the state was on the path of one of the first in the legalization of homosexual marriage. Thank God, that democracy works in America, and the will of the people led to electing Republican Governor. Everyone understands, no one guaranteed that Arnold Schwarzenegger will act like its predecessor-actor Ronald Reagan. Nevertheless, the constant and persistent pressure of the majority of the representatives of the Democratic Party in California continues to advocate for the legalization of same-sex marriage. What does this mean for us? This means that children in schools will be brought up with the knowledge that the two dads or two moms in the family it is normal and there is nothing negative. Are we, to a situation I do not know in our country, I only know that if the people are not informed about these important and specific different outlooks on life, we may find ourselves in a totally not the society we want to have. The choice is ours.
According to Martin, when we speak about the United States Department of Defense and the American people, we can find a fundamental difference (2005). Republicans believe that the United States should take responsibility for them and always be on full alert to stop and prevent any aggression against America. Republican politics has led to the end of the cold war and stop the arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union a little over a decade ago. The Democrats and the Democratic Party leadership headed by Bill Clinton withdrew from the US Army combat readiness and let China and other countries to purchase high technology, which in the next twenty-five years will be a threat to the security of our country. Democrats are trusted by the leadership of the UN, which is controlled by a number of countries opposed to the United States (Martin, 2005). They worry that "peace" initiative began to pass into the hands of the States, which are still controlled dictatorship and who have recently been involved in mass terrorism and the destruction of democratic regimes. That is, the Democratic Party leadership does not see the dangers and threats to our country. Because of this, President Clinton eased the work of the CIA for its eight years, the Pentagon cut off funding and limited number of ready combat troops. Due to inactivity of the Clinton administration and the Democratic leadership today, for example, Russia has a very competitive missile submarines. During the Clinton administration still two powers came to possess nuclear weapons, India and Pakistan. North Korea has acquired the ability to produce "heavy water" i.e. water enriched uranium, capable of producing nuclear weapons. And to all the troubles, America was attacked by one of the worst terrorist attacks in its history on September 11, 2001. There is no denying the role played, or should I say, has missed the opportunity to play in the prevention of a terrorist attack of this size organization the FBI. Yet in 1983, President Reagan appointed FBI to be the main agency in charge of protecting America from the threat of terrorism. However, already in 1993, the World Trade Center was attacked by members of al-Qaida, as well as in 1995, the Federal Centre for Murray in Oklahoma City was destroyed by a terrorist act. Many analysts agree that this led, to a series of actions and omissions of the Clinton administration and the Democratic leadership. The administration could give these bombings much more value and pay much more attention to not see the 11 September.
In the field of environment and environmental protection, neither party can praise itself for any achievements. Unfortunately for us, today, America is not one of the most threatening the environment. If you have been abroad for the last few years, you do not need to explain that the level of air cleanliness in the US is much higher, that is, you should just remember how hard it is to breathe in the streets in other countries. However, it should be noted very important facts. The Democrats are looking for ways to raise taxes on SUVs and other popular models of cars are not for the purpose of purifying the environment, and often in order to enrich and strengthen state structures, such as the environmental organization Agency (EPA) and similar. Thanks to Gray Davis signed the law, the new SUV will cost a few thousand more. It seemed, what a trifle, but it is no small matter, given that someone just wants to have dominion over the people, and to control what kind of car you can afford to buy, and what cannot. For example, the company will stop production car Ford because of these exaggerated environmental standards. Another serious question is oil (Reichley, 1992). The US is one of the richest countries on the location of the oil. Nevertheless, America buys more than 60% of its oil abroad, but due to the fact that the Democrats in the Senate do not want to allow American companies oil extraction in Alaska, in the Pacific and the Atlantic and elsewhere. At the same time, gasoline prices are increasing. When I came to America, refueling near my house took 82 cents per gallon of gasoline, today, I am not surprised when refuel, and I have to pay almost twice as much. Some reasons just lie in the politics of the liberal Democratic Party.
In the field of education, we find a similar picture. Democrats dream centralize education and learning for all children in public schools, where their hands will be full control over what your children learn and how. Unfortunately, this is just a dream Darwinists and socialists to teach what they like. Republicans are in favor of the parents had the choice of education for their children. If you believe that God created the world and we have to live by his laws, you will in the best case, it would be desirable to get your children to believe in the same, so the Republicans are in favor of choice and competition in education. If public schools cannot cope with the level of knowledge and education is low for a long time, Republicans offer children in such schools a way out. Instead of funding unproductive public schools, you can send the same taxpayers' money only to private schools or schools under the supervision of private organizations, such as our church. Republicans favor the development of schools at churches, synagogues, monasteries and other religious and public associations.
References
Bruzios, C. (1990). Democratic & Republican Party Activists & Followers: Inter- & Intra-Party Differences. Polity, 22(4), 581. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3234820
Butler, D., Karpowitz, C., & Pope, J. (2016). Who Gets the Credit? Legislative Responsiveness and Evaluations of Members, Parties, and the US Congress. PSRM, 1-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2015.83
Kolodny, R. & Dulio, D. (2003). Political Party Adaptation in US Congressional Campaigns: Why Political Parties Use Coordinated Expenditures to Hire Political Consultants. Party Politics, 9(6), 729-746. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/13540688030096004
Maisel, L. & Berry, J. (2010). The Oxford Handbook of American Political Parties and Interest Groups. Oxford: University Press.
Martin, J. (2005). Democrats, Republicans, and the Politics of Women's Place. Perspectives On Politics, 3(04). http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s153759270557049x
Reichley, J. (1992). The life of the parties. New York: Free Press.
Zupan, M. (1991). Local benefit-seeking and national policymaking: Democrats vs. Republicans in the legislature. Public Choice, 68(1-3). http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf00173831
