Since the 1800s, our country has drawn lines between citizens through differing political stances and social affiliations. For nearly 200 years, this has been the standard, making political decisions difficult, and elections heated. In the next several months the presidential frontrunners will spar and challenge long-standing issues that our country is facing. Therefore, as lines between moral and fiscal decisions blur, this article will make distinctions between political parties from the beginning of the division to current day beliefs.
Over time, beliefs of the two opposing parties have twisted and morphed into nearly unrecognizable ideas. Disagreements between the two evolved parties include economic, social, and militaristic dispute.
On economic issues, the U.S. remains split. Republicans tend to favor tax cuts or raises for people of all classes, believing this will aid business, and lure foreign trade back into our country. This Meanwhile, the Democratic Party favors a more liberal outlook, standing behind tax cuts for the middle and lower classes. They hope this will strengthen the lower classes, and positively impact economic equality in the U.S.. Both economic theories hold gravity in citizens’ minds, though it is unclear which option will take-all.
Another economic discrepancy is the government’s dissimilarity on the issue of healthcare. Congress recently passed Obamacare, or the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” causing a rift between the two parties. This act provides affordable healthcare to those who cannot afford it, and protects patients’ rights to nondiscriminatory care. This act is largely supported by the Democratic Party, due to lack of affordable healthcare to the lower class, and the fact that insurance companies may be discriminatory. Democratic Presidential Candidates are all in support of Obamacare, standing behind their party. On the opposite side of the spectrum, the Republican Party strongly disagrees with the proposal due to effectiveness and the cost-efficiency of this program. They believe that the act limits insurance competition for lower rates, and will have negative effects on the economy. In addition, those who don’t qualify for Obamacare are struck with higher insurance costs. This is due to the undeniable fact that when a company is forced to take on additional sick or injured clients, costs for everyone else shoot up, which puts those who do not qualify for Obamacare at a severe disadvantage. Taxes will climb, contributing to the breakdown of the middle class. Republicans hope to repeal the act, and replace it with “a bill that relies on creating more competition, reducing the role of government, lowering costs and enhancing the quality of care,” said Presidential frontrunner Carly Fiorina. Therefore, Republicans favor a different stance on healthcare, hoping to repeal the act.
Social discrepancies are also prevalent in the two parties. Issues such as abortion, gay marriage, and gun control are just a few of the many social disagreements between the two. Republicans favor lessened gun control, and are commonly “pro-life.” Candidates such as Carly Fiorina, Marco Rubio, Donald Trump, and Jeb Bush are among the many Republicans who are pro-life. The party is split on the idea of gay marriage, as 61 percent of young Republicans now favor it. Meanwhile, Democrats support abortion rights, gay marriage, and gun control. Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley are among those who are strong components in the fight to enact gun restrictions. Therefore, both parties favor individual rights in different circumstances.
The last basis of dispute is one of militaristic actions. Beginning in 2008, when Barack Obama was elected, military spending dropped substantially. These days, the U.S. employs techniques more favorable to the Democratic party. Troops are being pulled out of war-zones, and targeted attacks are becoming more common, as seen in conflicts such as the fight against ISIS. This party often prefers negotiation, and reasoning with threats. Democrats believe that our military budget is too large, and could be put to better use in our education and healthcare systems. Republicans, on the other hand, favor boots on the ground in conflict zones, and an increased military budget. The Republican Party believes that reasoning with people such as Vladimir Putin and Syrian Leader al-Assad will continue to yield little to no results, until it is backed with a threat or military action. Directly following the Russian attack on a Syrian Hospital on Sept. 30, Republicans such as Marco Rubio spoke out, saying that if actions are not taken, the U.S. could be barrelling toward a second Cold War. In addition, Republicans argue that land in war zones is being rapidly lost, due to lack of military action by the U.S.. The Party is largely unified on this issue.