Response

Cindy drunkenly disputes that Republicans and Democrats have different agendas and I think she has a point. "Agendas" is such a nasty word, though. Maybe I'm a bit off to suggest that Repubs and Dems merely have different strategies for achieving the same goals. I think they can also have different priorities in addition to different strategies.

But I think what gets lost in the way Cindy and the rest of the country views the Republican, Democrat difference is that I think we agree much more than we disagree, yet we allow the political elite to goad us into thinking we are in a culture war, or that our differences are so fundamental there is no reconciling or compromising. This, I think, is the biggest mistake we can make when thinking about political issues. It's all about where we start. Example:

1. Terrorism - We all agree it's a problem. The question is: how do we solve? Dems say, kick Al Queda's ass wherever they are. Repubs say, kick Al Queda's ass wherever they are, but let's also set up a model for democracy in Iraq, so we don't go about creating more Al Queda. Dems say, uhhhhh...we think there are problems with creating a model in Iraq, namely, that the rest of the world will think we're going in for oil and it will raise resentment, etc. And this debate can go on and on. Problem is, we usually start with: War in Iraq - Repubs think we should kick ass, Dems think we shouldn't be there...and then we're at an impasse.

2. Education - We should have better schools. Dems say, let's fund public education more, hold teachers accountable, improve testing standards, etc. Repubs say, we don't need more funding, we need better structure. We need to create competition amongst schools to increase incentives for improvements. ETC.

Cindy suggests that Republicans are more individual oriented and Dems more collectivist. I don't think this is true on a couple of levels. One, data does not suggest it to be true...it was Reagan's idea that to get government smaller and leaner, it needed to be starved and he did so by cutting taxes, ie giving the individual money back versus leaving it to the government to spend. But that leaner government wasn't fully realized until Bill Clinton - who basically bought into Reagan's economic principals. Further, Bill Clinton advocated extending job training and welfare reform not because he believed in a collectivist agenda, but rather, because he thought it was better for individuals - both those who were being trained to enter the workforce AND for the rest of us, who were paying for welfare and training - because it would get more people off welfare and cause less crime and be cheaper in the long run. He did not appeal to the idea of a greater whole, but to the American idea (not Repub or Dem) that what is good for the individual is good for the whole.

Secondly, people, for the most part, don't think about these issues philosophically. People don't become Republicans because they believe in a more individualist versus collectivist agendas. They become Republicans mainly because their parents were Republicans, but then also because of "moral" see: Christian values, or tax benefits, or National Defense strategy. Dems are so because their parents were dems, or they believe the rich should be taxed more than them, or because of the legacy of the Civil Rights movement they view Dems as being the party of extending liberty, and so forth.

All right, Chuck and Cindy have both complained my posts are too long, and then I've done it again.