CNN political analyst Joe Lockhart recently told Brian Stelter that “from the very first briefing the Trump spokespeople lied, they lied every day…” followed by, “Jen Psaki is in there telling the truth…” This is a classic example of illogical party loyalty. An impartial observer would find that Jen Psaki, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, et al are put in a very difficult position of spinning facts, toeing the line and even misrepresenting the truth, when required. There is ample evidence that each party does this in equal measure – it’s part of the political game. To suggest that one party tells the truth while the other party lies is disingenuous and ultimately ridiculous.
When attempting to approach societal issues with logic rather than blindly supporting the red party or the blue party position, one can easily find that each party is on the more logical side of some issues and not others. This can pose problems when entering the ballot box. Logical thinkers tend to vote for the party that best represents the issues most important to them, but they don’t try to excuse that party for being wrong on other issues. Here are a few examples and my choice for which party has the stronger argument.
Abortion – Democrats
Pro-Life arguments are difficult to counter. Abortion is the killing of fetus. However, looking at the issue unemotionally, we must decide whether society is better off with a slowly declining number of abortions or an escalating number of unwanted children often born to teens who lack the resources to raise them to be productive members of society. The way to reduce and eventually eliminate abortion is through education and easy access to birth control, not laws and punishment. When there is a demand for a product or service and that product or service becomes illegal or over-taxed, that product or service moves to an invisible marketplace often called the black market. It happened with alcohol during the prohibition, marijuana until recently, and will surely happen if Roe v Wade is overturned and certain states begin to outlaw abortion again. It is fine to be pro-life, but work to reduce the number of abortions through means other than legislation and the courts.
The Economy – Republicans
This is certainly oversimplifying complex economic principles, but here goes. Those economists who prefer some version of Monetarist theory make more sense to me than those who espouse some version of Keynesian economic theory. The Monetarists feel that government’s main economic role is to manage money supply. Art Laffer would be a good example of this school of thought, sometimes called “Supply-side Economics.” Keynesian disciples prefer a more active government role in planning and managing the overall economy. Paul Krugman, award-winning economist and NY Times contributor, would be a good example of this school. In my layman’s opinion, the more Keynesian approaches favored by the Democrats work much better in models than in the real world. The government simply can’t pivot quickly enough to take advantage of opportunities or prevent collapses. When I look at countries that have tried this, none have prospered the way America has when it has taken a more conservative Monetarist-type of approach which allows markets to work. And some of the results of countries trying to implement strong central planning have been catastrophic – like Venezuela or East Germany.
The tax cuts of Calvin Coolidge, John Kennedy, Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump were all followed by periods of rapid economic expansion. We also experienced growth during the FDR and Obama years when the Keynesians were driving the ship. But growth was much slower, hampered by unnecessary regulatory burdens, increased taxes on corporations and the wealthy, and the targeted nature of Democratic government stimulus spending. Stimulating the economy through lower taxation is much more efficient at boosting economic growth than direct payments to preferred groups. The Keynesians are correct, however, that the “trickle down” prosperity promised by the Supply-siders doesn’t really happen, making income and wealth disparities worse. The answer to this, separate social problem, is not to kill the economic engine that is capitalism, but to find ways to make the distribution more equitable without depending on the government to seize and redistribute the spoils.
The Border – Neither
If you listen to Republicans or Fox News, you’ll hear plenty about the volume of undocumented individuals crossing our southern border. They’ll focus on the human trafficking and drugs that are crossing with them. If you listen to Democrats or CNN, you’ll hear about the wave of undocumented individuals, but you’ll hear about how Republicans are mean and don’t want them to be able to access the social safety net or vote. What neither side will address is the need to modernize and speed up our guest worker program so that these people can get jobs. Fox won’t say it because it would be admitting that the country needs these workers they’d prefer to exclude. CNN won’t say it because they’re happy for these folks to create an additional layer of Americans dependent on government. Both parties are way off base when it comes to immigration policy.
Health Care – Democrats
One of our more historically significant missed economic opportunities occurred during the Lyndon Johnson administration. LBJ had a chance to correct a blunder from the Franklin Roosevelt administration 20 years earlier. The short version is that health insurance became attached to the workplace during FDRs wage controls in 1942-43. When employers weren’t allowed to raise wages, they began offering health insurance as an incentive to recruit workers and just like that, employers were in the health insurance business. This link between health insurance and the workplace has been a huge anchor on company productivity ever since. When LBJ was able to get Medicare and Medicaid passed in 1965, we had the opportunity to introduce Medicare for all and get health care out of the workplace. Instead, we passed other social safety nets like WIC that ended up having a devastating effect on poorer Americans, especially the black family unit. One wonders what the country would look like now had we passed universal health coverage instead of some of those other welfare programs at that time.
The U.S. will eventually have a universal, single-payer health care system. Republican resistance is based on the concept that free market solutions are better. While I agree with that sentiment 99.9% of the time, I have not found that consumers shop for health care the way the shop for cars and televisions. The only time that health care choices are consumer driven is when patients are researching elective procedures (laser eye surgery, breast augmentation, hair implants, etc.). There has been some improvement in the way consumers purchase pharmaceuticals in the past decade, but when you’re sick, you still go to the nearest clinic or hospital for care.
National Defense – Republicans
Democrats’ thirst for cash to support their social spending initiatives almost always results in a weakening of our national defense budgets during a Democratic administration. About 25% of the military’s budget goes to payroll costs. The military remains one of the best alternatives for disadvantaged people to get out of bad neighborhoods, learn discipline and learn marketable skills. Other Military spending often goes right back into the U.S. economy through military contracts with domestic companies. This isn’t government spending that just evaporates, as is portrayed by some liberals.
Republican Theodore Roosevelt famously said, “walk softly and carry a big stick.” Democrats don’t seem to understand that the diplomacy they love is much more effective when the group we’re negotiating with respects or even fears our capabilities.
Critics of the Reagan militarization build-up in the 1980s do have some good points as it pertains to deficit spending. But the results are there in the history books – he forced the Soviets to spend themselves out of relevance. Most of us know that Reagan’s critics would have been happy to spend those same dollars on social welfare programs or foreign aid which would have weakened us rather than strengthening us. If I had a 19 year old child who wasn’t really college material, I would much rather them join the U.S. military than become dependent on a social safety net program.
Education – Republicans
If you have read my previous blog articles about education, you’ll know that I am a staunch believer in school choice at the K-12 level. Our higher education system is the envy of the world. It is made up of a combination of public and private institutions. Students can choose the institution that is right for them. Democrats’ opposition to charter schools, voucher programs, seems to be much more about controlling the flood of money into single school district than about the value and quality of the education product delivered. Freeing up tax dollars currently allocated to a single geographic school district would be much more efficiently used as part of a voucher type program where all parents, not just the wealthy ones, can choose the best school for their children. While competition doesn’t really work in health care, it will work in education.
Infrastructure – Democrats
Since Democrats tend to love any kind of government spending that they can take credit for, they tend to be more likely to sponsor and pass important infrastructure bills (but not exclusively). FDR used the concept of infrastructure spending to attempt to pull the country out of the great depression. Both Obama and Biden have sponsored large infrastructure bills. Republicans tend to go along with infrastructure bills but are not typically the initiators.
Social Justice – Neither
This may seem odd as Democrats are supposedly the champions of underserved, underrepresented and marginalized people, right? Unfortunately, the way Dems pander to “marginalized” people is to continually reinforce the idea that they are victims with only Democratic politicians to advocate for them. But Democrat policies are designed to keep them dependent on government, not to unshackle their potential. While Republicans have a checkered history in race relations, their core economic policies are arguably better for African Americans long-term than Democratic solutions. Trump did better with both African American and Hispanic voters in 2020 than he did in 2016, possibly signaling a small but growing recognition amongst those groups that Democratic solutions don’t lead to wealth creation.
We’ll look at other policy topics in a future blog.