I'm working on a longer analysis of the differences between the two political parties that reflect overarching themes in our nation as well as differences in values.
In short, I see the Republican (conservative) view as one that emphasizes the individual good (mostly of a certain class of people), as well as the corporate good, and appeals to the human selfish tendency, an individualistic and competitive strain, and a focus on "me."
I see the Democratic (liberal) view as one the emphasizes the collective, or community good (in which all people share) and appeals to a communitarian tendency, a desire for shared prosperity, and a willingness to sacrifice as well as be generous to fellow citizens.
Of course there are unselfish and kind conservatives in their personal lives, but the conservative ideology is one that appeals to selfishness, and there are selfish liberals in their personal lives, but the ideology is one that appeals to a communitarian impulse.
Here's a perfect example of what I'm talking about: John McCain's phony proposals to help lower gas prices.
With gas prices rising, John McCain first proposed a gas tax holiday for the summer. This appeals to Americans who are thinking of their pocketbook and nothing else. They don't care if a gas tax holiday costs hundreds of thousands of jobs related to infrastructure repair that is funded by the gas tax, they don't care if bridges fall down, and they don't care what economists say about the futility of thinking you can lower gas prices with a gas tax holidy. They hear that someone is going to cut a tax and that's all they care about. The proposal also appeals to the traditionally pro-Republican oil companies, who see an opportunity to benefit even more by tacking on a higher profit margin once the tax is removed. John McCain is appealing to the selfish interests of individuals and big corporations.
Hillary Clinton tried the same thing, but with a majority of Democrats who are educated enough to see that it wouldn't work to anyone's advantage but the oil companies, and who care about the greater communitarian good (i.e. the importance of jobs and the infrastructure), the proposal bombed.
Now, McCain is following Bush and proposing lifting the ban on offshore oil drilling. This amounts to nothing more than another giveaway to oil companies, as well as a phony idea that will do nothing to help consumers for at least ten years, if ever. But many Republican voters, who are attracted to policies that promise to help their individual interests, even if they don't actually do so (selfishness can make one really stupid), cheer madly when McCain brings up the plan. It is wildly popular with his supporters, even though it will not reduce the cost of gas and not make us energy independent (adding only a small amount, after ten years or more, to the huge demand for oil in our country – we would still have to import most of our oil).
Obama, on the other hand, has talked with economists who are nearly unanimous in saying this will help nothing, not in the short term, nor in the long term. Oil companies already have plenty of land to drill on that is untouched. But rather than suggest they begin drilling on those lands first, McCain is going for the big proposal – putting more oil rigs along the coast where millions can see them and be constantly reminded of his effort to lower the cost of a gallon of gas, even if all he is doing is putting more money in the pockets of oil companies by giving them drilling rights on waters that should belong to the people, and tax breaks for the investments they make in setting up their oil rigs. He's once again not concerned at all about the actual cost of gas because he knows his proposal will not help. In lying to the people, however, and spewing the propaganda that more drilling will lower the cost of gas, he's appealing to raw selfishness, of both individuals and corporations. He's also playing the patriotism card as he makes the false promise that this will help us end our dependency on foreign oil.
Obama's plan, on the other hand, is not to merely end our dependence on foreign oil, but to end our dependence on oil, period. He wants to invest in alternative fuels and in the long term move us away from an oil-dependent economy. Besides the long term plan, he is recommending short term measures, like conservation, and simple changes in how we maintain our automobiles, like fully inflating tires to get better gas mileage. He is also insisting the auto companies speed up the development of cars with better fuel economy. As for helping with the cost of gasoline, he is proposing an emergency $1000 rebate to families as part of his newly released economic paper.
None of these things will harm the tourist and coastal economies, nor hurt the environment, all of which could be the result of massive off-shore drilling which will also continue our dependency on oil, give us a false sense of security, and postpone the time when we must shift to alternative fuels. In each of these measures, Obama is appealing to the communitarian instincts of Democrats: the willingness to sacrifice and think beyond themselves to what benefits the greater community, including the importance of preserving the environment, the necessity of repairing the crumbling infrastructure, and the danger to the nation's security if we continue our dependence on oil.
Of course, republicans like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh mock him for suggesting something many other politicians and the auto industry recommend: fully inflating tires. All they can do is mock when they have no reasonable argument. Republicans mocked Jimmy Carter, too, when he warned of the problems we would face in terms of our oil dependency in the years ahead.
And guess who was right? The Democratic president who suggested we sacrifice, improve mileage standards, and find alternative sources of oil. The Democrat who was thinking not about oil company profits nor the selfish needs of individuals, but of the big picture, and what would benefit us all.
