Modern Parties Have More In Common Flashcards
(7 cards)
Introduction
Despite occasional overlap, modern Democrats and Republicans differ significantly on most key issues, from foreign policy to immigration and the role of government, driven by fundamentally opposing philosophies and priorities. These differences shape distinct visions for the US, with little common ground beyond situational agreements
1: it could be argued that despite differences in rhetoric and diplomatic priorities, Democrats and Republicans in modern US politics share significant common ground in their approach to foreign policy, particularly when it comes to maintaining military strength and asserting American power abroad.
-both parties have demonstrated a commitment to a strong defence posture and have been willing to use military force to advance US interests.
-Under President Obama, the US carried out extensive military operations, criticised as hawkish, including 560 drone strikes in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen, a strategy that marked a significant escalation in the use of targeted force compared to the Bush administration. Obama also authorised military action in Libya in 2011, aimed at removing Muammar Gaddafi, and conducted raids in Syria to combat ISIS, emphasising the necessity of US intervention in global conflicts.
-on the Republican side, President Trump prioritised military power, proposing a $54 billion in defence spending and advocating for expansion of the nuclear arsenal. In 2018, reports emerged that Trump was considering loosening constraints on the use of nuclear weapons and developing new low-yield nuclear warheads. Trump also maintained a forceful and confrontational approach to North Korea, issuing threats of “fire and fury” and frequently boasting about the size of the US nuclear arsenal.
-these actions reflect a bipartisan understanding that military strength is crucial for national security, even if strategies diverge in tone and emphasis
1: nevertheless, the two parties diverge sharply on their use of diplomacy and multilateral agreements.
-Democrats typically favour diplomatic engagement and international cooperation. For instance, President Obama negotiated the Iran Nuclear Deal (JCPOA) in 2015, which aimed to limit Iran’s nuclear capabilities via a relief of economic sanctions. Biden, consistent with the diplomatic approach, sought to rejoin JCPOA after Trump unilaterally withdrew from it in 2018, imposing stringent sanctions instead. He even rejoined the Paris Climate Agreement, post Trump’s withdrawal in 2017, signalling a renewed commitment to global climate cooperation.
-this strikingly contrasts to Trump’s foreign policy that was marked by a clear disdain for multilateral commitments and a preference for unilateral action. Throughout his administration, he criticised NATO allies for what he perceived as their failure to contribute adequately to the alliance’s defence budget. In addition, Trump’s “America First” policy also led to strained relationships with allies and a focus on punitive economic measures, such as imposing tariffs on China and threatening trade sanctions on European Partners.
Thus while both parties agree on the necessity of military strength and are willing to engage in armed interventions, their foreign policy philosophies differ significantly. Democrats favour diplomacy and multilateral agreements to address global challenges, while Republicans, especially under Trump, have often taken a more isolationist and confrontational stance.
2: Moreover, it can be contested that recently, regarding immigration policy, both parties have at times adopted strict enforcement measures that suggest more overlap than commonly perceived.
-Both parties have supported policies that enforce border security and restrict illegal immigration. Under President Obama, the administration deported over 2.5 million undocumented immigrants, earning him the nickname “Deporter-in-Chief.” Obama’s use of deportation programs illustrates that even a democratic president known for advocating immigration reform took significant steps to curb illegal immigration. Similarly, the continuance of Title 42 under President Biden until 2023- a policy allowing the expulsion of migrants during the pandemic to halt the spread of the virus- demonstrates that democrats can maintain strict border controls when deemed necessary.
-moderate republicans have vice-versa, shown some flexibility on immigration whereby leaning towards the left, with business-focused members advocating for a softer stance to boost the economy and attract hispanic voters, which reveals some convergence with moderate democratic positions. Even Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” Act in 2002 facilitated refugee children to have access to standard education.
2: despite these areas of overlap, these similarities are eclipsed by the contrasting inclusive reforms of the democrats and the republicans drive for stringent enforcement, thus, deep divisions persist.
-democrats prioritise pathways to citizenship and inclusive policies, such as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program introduced by Obama in 2012, which protected hundreds of of thousands of undocumented children from deportation. Biden also proposed the US Citizenship Act of 2021, aiming to provide a path for citizenship for 11 million undocumented immigrants, and swiftly repealed Trump’s travel ban on Muslim-majority countries upon taking office.
-in stark contrast, Trump’s administration took a hardline approach, focusing on restricting immigration through measures like the travel ban and an aggressive push for a border wall in Mexico. This stance led to a historic 35-day government shutdown in 2018-2019, as democrats, led by Chuck Schumer, refused to fund the wall. Additionally, Trump’s divisive rhetoric, labelling Mexican immigrants as “rapists”, exemplified by the Republican Party’s harsh messaging, which fundamentally differs from the Democrat’s emphasis on compassionate reform.
Although both parties have implemented tougher boarder security measures, the Democratic force on humanitarian reforms and inclusion starkly contrasts with the Republicans’ emphasis on restriction and securitisation. While these occasional areas of policy overlap in times of crises, the values guiding each party’s stance on immigration remain substantially different.
3: finally, it could be stated that although the two parties have historically disagreed over the size and role of of government, moments of crisis have revealed that both Democrats and Republicans are willing to embrace federal intervention.
-both parties have supported significant government spending during emergencies. The Obama administration’s $700 billion Emergency Economic Stabilisation Act post the financial crash 2008, and the Trump administration’s $2.3 trillion CARES ACT in response to Covid-19 both reflect bipartisan acceptance of Keynesian economics to mitigate financial crises. Additionally, infrastructure spending has garnered cross-party support.
-Biden’s $1.2 trillion Bipartisan Infrastructure Law aimed to modernise US infrastructure, a goal that Republicans have also championed in the past. Furthermore, while Democrats are known for advocating healthcare reforms, such as the Affordable Care Act (ACA), republicans under Trump, despite opposing ACA, did propose an alternative in the American Health Care Act, though it ultimately failed due to resistance from both moderates and the House Freedom Caucus.
3: nonetheless, difference in economic philosophy remain pronounced is more convincing.
-democrats generally believe in expanding the role of government to address social inequalities. This is evident in the initiative like the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) 2022, which addresses climate change, healthcare costs and inflation through substantial public investment.
-conversely, Republicans champion smaller government and tax cuts, as demonstrated by Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, which reduced corporate tax rates from 35% to 21%. The Republican Party’s embrace of laissez-faire economics is further illustrated by their resistance to regulations like Dodd-Frank and environmental protections, with Trump even proposing a 31% cut to the Environmental Protection Agency. The Tea Party faction of the Republican Party consistently called for even more drastic reductions, including reductions of the national debt and federal budget deficit through decreased government spending.
On healthcare, the ideological divide is clear: Bernie Sander’s advocacy for “single-payer healthcare” was dismissed by Trump as a “curse on the united states”.
Although both parties occasionally support expansive government actions, particularly in times of crisis, their broader ideologies differ significantly. Democrats generally advocate for a proactive federal government in economic and social policy, while Republicans push for reduced government size, lower taxes and minimal regulation. Thus, despite temporary alignments, their core beliefs of the size and role of government remain fundamentally opposed.
