With an “historic election” right around the corner, politics can appear as confusing and messy as ever. Mudslinging seems to have become an art form. An awful lot of rhetoric is floating around, leaving many voters wondering, “What does that mean?” And emotions are purposely brought into play — some employing the use of good old-fashioned mockery — attempting to make their positions seem superior in every way.

A lot more is made of the independent voters this year, and it is common to hear people voice their frustration in the election, saying they are not happy with either option.

On the other hand, many candidates and their respective parties have supporters who are akin to religious converts, or disciples, believing fervently that their candidate or party has all the right answers and comprises the nation’s salvation.

It can also be disheartening to realize that campaigns market their candidates in a fashion similar to the marketing of a product or brand, using psychology to carefully choose words, colors, facial expressions, and clothing. This feels a little like manipulation, rather than a genuine representation.

All of this can be tiresome, stressful and bewildering for the conscientious voter trying to negotiate it all, and make a good, informed choice.

All of this seems to have replaced true policy discussion. And when there is policy discussion, as in the debates, both sides claim to defend freedom, both claim to stand up for people, both claim to have the solution for the economic problems, both claim to be right and the other so very wrong.



Political party differences

With these claims, understanding the philosophical differences of the Republican and Democrat Parties may be very important. Policies and different stances can possibly be seen and understood better in the light of the long-term visions that the candidates are guided by. The different philosophies are reflected in policy, and basically come down to different views as to how government should fulfill its role.



Role of government

The preamble to the constitution states the purpose of establishing the constitution, in other words, the purpose of creating government: “to establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity…”

Chris Rothfuss, candidate for one of Wyoming’s seats in the United States Senate summed that up: “I believe that government exists only for the greater good of the people.”

What that greater good is, and how to achieve that greater good is where differences occur. (It should be noted that there are other political parties aside from the Democrat and Republican, but the current political system is mostly designed for just two, and the majority of voters belong to one of the two.)

Gathering from discussions with Dr. James King, University of Wyoming Political Science professor, Dr. Sherrill Shaffer, UW Economics professor, local political party chairs, and current candidates, the very basic differences in philosophy come down to a few main points: The size and emphasis of government (including regulation), social issues, and the relationship of government to the economy.



Size of Government

Todd Compton, independent scholar and author, outlined the idea of governmental size, “Republicans stand for as little government as possible. Therefore, they tend to want to cut taxes.” However, Dr. Shaffer pointed out that Democratic candidates often have “greater emphasis on balanced federal budgets (often with correspondingly higher taxes) versus an emphasis on lower taxes (often with higher deficits) by Republican candidates.”

“Democrats,” said Compton, “on the other hand, typically feel that one of the federal government’s primary responsibilities is to help with social problems, such as poverty, bad education, pollution. Therefore, they often ask for more taxes…. Education is a signature issue for the Democrats, and they most often ask for more education money than do Republicans.” “The Democrats favor social programs,” King said, with a focus on the “needy and disadvantaged.” And this is where much of the size of government comes, which is disliked by Republicans.

Republicans, in contrast, prefer “self-motivation to solve problems, rather than giving people financial help,” said Compton. King agreed, emphasizing personal responsibility over governmental involvement.

In addition, Compton pointed out that with the emphasis on the stock market, Republicans seek the good of people through a “healthy business sector,” which, he said, could be argued, “benefits the whole fabric of society, including poor and middle class, providing jobs, helping people help themselves, that healthy business keeps the economy running.”

However, he also pointed out that, “Often, the playing field is not level — in fact, there is never a completely level playing field, even in America. Republicans have a tendency to ignore that fact.”

Government involvement comes through regulation, as well, and in general and in broad terms, Republicans oppose regulation; however, the party does “favor restrictions in certain social policies,” said King. However, he went on to say, “there are many social issues that don’t fit nicely into their plan for governmental regulation. Hand gun control is one of those. While abortion is opposed and legislation is sought, the opposite is true of gun control.”



Central vs. state

Closely related to those emphases is the issue of where the regulation and involvement takes place. In general, said King, the “Republicans favor regulation at the state level versus the national level, except with certain social issues.”

Mark Harris, chair of the Uinta County Republicans, concurred.

“The closer the government is to the people, that’s where government first ought to act,” Harris said.

In contrast, King explained, the Democrats favor national regulation and standards. Sharon McPhie, Chair of Uinta County Democrats, believes that these national regulations and actions comprise a focus on human issues that are important across the nation, including women’s issues, and family issues, which comprise things such as health care, education, and early childhood intervention programs. Her belief is that quality of life for all is a duty of government, and worthy of intervention.

Government and the economy

Regarding the governmental relationship to the economy, Compton summarizes: “Republicans typically want to protect capitalism, as defined by the owners and management of companies, and they typically want to minimize federal regulations that affect business.” This includes environmental regulation, which is why Republicans often side against environmental protection.

“Though the Democrats support capitalism, they generally side with labor, rather than with the company management; with the people, not with the financial elite,” Compton said.

Harris got a little more specific: “The government should act only when the private sector cannot or will not…We want business to find solutions, not the government.” Dr. Shaffer of UW further explained that “it is often the case that Republican candidates tend to advocate policies that promote relatively less reliance on government involvement (especially at the federal level) and relatively more reliance on free-market solutions, while Democratic candidates often tend to advocate policies in which the government attempts to engage more directly in solutions to perceived economic problems.”

Dr. King added to the explanation that the Democratic position “is to use government regulatory authority to accomplish goals and temper the swings of the market.” In general, explained Dr. King, and “in broad terms, the Republican philosophy opposes government regulation in the economy.” However, with the current economic problems blamed on de-regulation, both presidential candidates are calling for regulation and government intervention.

Dr. Shaffer, with expertise in economics, delved deeper into this aspect. Those on the side of lessening government involvement in the market “maintain that an unregulated market tends to provide better outcomes than when the government gets involved.” He explained that their reasoning includes two main assumptions: “government is more centralized than individual businesses and consumers, and thus has more indirect and inefficient access to much of the relevant information.”

And secondly, “government is an extra layer in the mix, adding unnecessary costs to market operations.”

However, he points out that those who favor more government involvement note issues with these observations. “Some people would say that, being centralized, government often actually has better information on the big picture, and would point to the recent bailout as an example — where was the free market when the problem was being created, and where was the free market when a bailout was needed?”

The counterarguments to the assumption that government involvement increases costs include the idea that “externalities often exist, in which one party’s actions create consequences for others beyond those exchanged in voluntary market transactions.” Shaffer used pollution as an example of this point.

“A manufacturer and its consumers alike may benefit from a product even if making it involves polluting the environment, but the polluted environment harms other people whether they buy the product or not,” Shaffer said.

In addition, these “externalities require coordinated community action to resolve, and government is already set up to provide such coordinated action.” Shaffer’s final observation in favor of government regulation is the idea that information is not always shared equally and fairly, and these problems “create perverse incentives for private businesses and individuals,” to act unethically.

Compton stated the concept that the Republican philosophy of de-regulation that favor business and emphasizes personal responsibility omits the fact “sometimes people gain wealth in ways that are unrelated to moral virtues. Sometimes people inherit wealth. Sometimes people inherit the opportunity for wealth. Sometimes people gain wealth through luck, not through any great moral insight, or even through hard work. Sometimes people even gain wealth through unethical practices, by taking advantage of more ethical people.”

Social issues

As stated previously, the Republican party shies away from regulation, except in some of the social issues, including abortion, marriage amendments, and the death penalty. Compton stated, “The Republicans are often allied with the religious right, and therefore Republicans sometimes seek to legislate religious values.” The Democratic party states a support of civil rights, including the “right to choose,” on behalf of women and abortion, and allowing gay people the right to marry. “They are also the party most concerned about civil rights, at the present time, so minorities, blacks, and Latinos typically support the Democratic party,” said Compton.

Both Rothfuss and Saundra Meyer, Democratic candidates in Wyoming, stated their moderate positions, including fiscal responsibility, but mentioned that they like the diversity and acceptance associated with the Democrats. “I believe the Democratic Party represents citizens regardless of their economic status. The diversity of the Democratic Party members appeals to my beliefs,” Rothfuss said.



Changes in national policy direction

Regardless of who wins the presidential election, “Congress is set up to say ‘no,’ and will be prohibitive to any major changes in direction or policy,” said King.

But maybe noting the differences in point of view will help with understanding and consensus building.

Maybe people should come together and support each other and give whoever takes office a chance. Compton noted that there could be an argument for both parties, King said.

He cited an author who posited, “both the Republican and Democratic tendencies are necessary in the American political life.

In his view, Republicans provide the motivation for self-improvement, self-motivation; Democrats provide the tendency to help those who are less fortunate. Both are valid poles in a continuum,” King said.