Wednesday, 18 November 2015 14:12

How Our Political Parties Differ

Written by
Rate this item
(0 votes)

How Our Political Parties Differ

Robert L. Wichterman

Robert L. Wichterman writes from Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

Cynics claim that there is no difference between a Republican or a Democrat elected official. They are both "politicians" (a negative title), and both are for sale. There are rotten apples in every barrel, but I disagree with the above view.

There are differences, though, among office-holders, and between the major political parties. Obviously, no characterization is equally valid, but I will broadly depict each one.

The Republican Party's platform and agenda are Pro-Life, while the Democrats are Pro-Choice. As noted, not every candidate fits into this niche. But, due to this perception, evangelical and fundamentalist Christians are usually Republicans.

With the exception of Congressman Ron Paul, the Republican presidential candidates are supporting President Bush's judgment that we have to fight the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan; all of the Democrats oppose our involvement in Iraq, and have vowed to bring our military home ASAP.

Recently, there was an evangelical Christian conference in Washington, DC. Most of the GOP presidential contenders spoke there, for this bloc represents about one-third of their constituents. The Family Research Council are to the Republicans what NARAL, the ADA, the NEA, and "moveon.org" are to the Democrats. (This is why none of their candidates criticized moveon.org's "General Betray Us" advertisement.)

Even before the "Surge" of troops in Iraq took place, therefore, Sen. Harry Reid declared that the war had already been lost, and it was time for the Democrats to take control. Some others intimated that Gen. Petraeus's statements had been crafted by the White House, in order to reduce his credibility. They were afraid that the General's and Ambassador Crocker's testimony would increase the Iraq war's approval rating.

Do the Democrats really want us "thrown out" of Iraq? Being Globalists, and quite Euro-centric, our defeat there would confirm that their doctrine is correct: We should never act unilaterally, but only when we are in total conformity with the UN's and our European allies' assessments. Now, the European Union, and many of the world's "free" countries, are pacifists and appeasers. (There is no longer anything worth dying for.) Yet, to be consistent with their Globalist stance, the Democrats have adopted these concepts without publicity.

Moreover, being forced from Iraq is the liberal left's best chance to convert us from our traditional Americanism to European pacifism. Their major concern is that if the Iraqis continue to join us in the war against al-Qaeda, and the insurgents, and the resulting success allows the Iraq government to attain sufficient control throughout the country for our stated goals to be met, the United States will have achieved its objective. Despite all of our obvious mistakes, President Bush will be vindicated, as will those Republicans who stood by him. The "losers" will be those who vocally opposed him.

As we approach the 2008 elections, the question is, what philosophy or direction is best for America now, since "The Kingdom" has not yet arrived? Will we have "Peace in our time" if the Democrats control both the Congress and the White House? Are the Republicans the "War Party" who will send our military into all of the world's "hot spots," to bring democracy to them?

The answer to the latter two queries is "No." The explanation, though, is more involved.

Neither the national Democratic Party, nor any of their elected or appointed officials want to see the United States in bondage to any foreign power or doctrine, whether it is Islamofascism, Russia, or China. Yet they are Globalists, which is evidenced by their deifying the UN, by their Euro-centrism, and their multilateralism. President Bush is their number one enemy; he is a unilateralist, who does not care whether the French or any other nation approves of him. The Democratic goal is to cause each one of President Bush's initiatives to fail.

These are the principal differences between the Republican and Democratic Parties. They are rarely given the publicity needed to make them as well known to the public as are the "Liberal" and "Conservative" concepts. *

"Don't you think the road commissioner would be willing to pay my wife something for her recipe for pie crust?" -Calvin Coolidge

Read 1377 times Last modified on Saturday, 10 December 2016 18:00
Robert L Wichterman

Robert L. Wichterman writes from Lancaster, Pennsylvania.

Login to post comments