A Broad Generalization
The more I become entrenched in the day-to-day happenings of our political system, the more I become aware of the main distinction between the Democrats and Republicans. I will be happy to admit that I am not in any fashion to be considered a political guru nor do I have any political experience besides the usual set-ups of local community governance, but I feel with the abundance of media coverage and availability of information, I can be confident in my opinions. My conclusion is this: the Republican effort is to ensure the welfare of those who belong to a certain group (i.e. whites, Oregonians, businessmen), while the Democrats' effort is to ensure the welfare of everyone in America.
This may sound a bit derisive of Republicans, but I do not mean that they don't care about all Americans. Rather, it is that they feel that it is not everyone's responsibility to ensure the welfare of everyone else. It can be looked at as a Socialism v Capitalism argument or maybe a State v Federal argument, but the issue can really be broken down into us v everyone. What I mean by this is that there isn't a consistent group or representation of who Republicans care about, each person has their own communities to which they are involved: family, neighborhood, county, peer group, etc. These smaller groups and the welfare of them are more important than that of the entire nation. In contrast, the Democratic viewpoint makes it so that each person, from Albuquerque, NM to Augusta, ME have the same rights and opportunities.
I feel that both views have validity, but each should be imposed when the issue deems it so. For specific issues, local government works fine. But now things are a bit more complicated, a bit more widespread. In the age of large, dominant corporations that span nationwide (some 'too large to fail'), then a nationwide element must step in. Hence, governmental intervention. In doing so, local groups will be upset, claiming no relevance on their part or 'why am I paying for something that doesn't involve me'. In fact, this seems to me to be the big issue with the Health Care reform, in that Republicans do not want to have to pay for others' care. Whether or not the reform actually calls for this is another debate (mostly about scare tactics and fearmongering), but it does seem to just boil down to my group v the nation as a whole.
What I find interesting about all of this is the ability of those in their groups to call for outrage on national policies when things are going ok in their community, but will call for action when that same group (or individuals therein) come upon misfortune or serious problems. I hate to say it, but it makes those rallying against a national welfare initiative to seem prejudiced or discriminatory against others. The reason for denying help to others boils down to the fact that one assumes he (or those like him) are better than the others; that his wealth is more important, that his health is more important, that his time is more important than that of anyone else.
Personally, I am fine with egocentricity, as I am a big supporter of the Objectivism movement, but at the same time, I am aware that I am part of a community, and at its largest level is a nationwide commonwealth. This means that certain issues require nationwide action. The battles and arguments arise from these Republicans and Democrats' differing views on which issues require nationwide action. Unfortunately, these arguments can turn quite vile and often devolve into bickering with much more denigrating generalizations about political ideologies than the one made here. My only hope is that somehow people will try to see things from the others' point of view and keep an open mind on issues and how they relate on both the local and national level. But I am also hoping for a Buffalo Bills super bowl win. I will not be holding my breath for either one.
