Politics and Business

It has long been held that the Democratic Party is the party for the laborers and educators and the Republican Party is the pro-business party. I believe this is more traditional rhetoric than actual practice. It is my desire to explain this statement in the following article.

[Sometimes since because of the respective parties the advocacy of the aforementioned that Republican Party is anti-labor and anti-education and the Democrats are anti-business. That is in practice untrue and false logic. Nevertheless, parties do have the particular ideological emphasizes and typical support groups.]

As I have written before there have been significant ideological shifts in both parties to the left in my lifetime. This is particularly true since the Reagan administration economically and with the advent of the Tea Party and the Trump election politically. A characterization of the Republican Party is that it was a pro-business advocate. It was an important aspect of the Republican Party that was good for the nation. I believe that emphasis had now undergone a significant, even radical shift that is bad for the country as a whole.

My premise is that the Republican Party led by President Trump is no longer the advocate of all business but has now limited that focus to being the advocate of large businesses and has left small businesses to their own devices along with the workers in both large and small business.

The reason for this shift if found largely in two places. The first of this shift has to do with lobbyists.  According to Wikipedia, there are currently 1,274 pharmaceutical lobbyists in Washington D.C, that are more than 2 lobbyists per member of congress. That is a whole lot of influence upon congress and they have spent the most in their lobbying efforts than any other business or interest group. It is believed that there are more than12,000 lobbyists in Washington D.C. most of which are in 300 firms. The spending break down according to Statista  (a German online research group for statistics) is as follows in millions of dollars: 295.17 millions by Pharmaceuticals/Health Products, 156.39 millions by electronics manufacturing and equipment, 155.5 millions by insurance companies, 124.7 millions by oil and gas, and 121.27 millions by business associations. That is a lot of money from big business. Note I said big business. The vast majority of these lobbyists work for big business not small business. And this is my point. The Republican Party has become largely supportive of big business and is not particularly supportive of small business.

The second major aspect of the shift to big business support is rooted in “Citizens United.” When the Supreme Court enacted this interpretation that businesses can be regarded as people and therefore may contribute as individual persons that enabled big businesses to invest more in support of candidates in contrast to small businesses and individuals. This means the wealthier the more influence. Thus “we the people” become “we the people of wealth” are the most influential in government. All of which contributes to our government to become an oligarchy (government by the wealthy) over democracy (government by the majority of individuals.)

To get to a democratic system were “we the people” regain control of government we need to get extreme wealth out of the political campaign system. This could be easily done by making part of our taxes, a few dollars, to used for campaigning and no dollars coming from special interest group and business. Lobbyists could remain but should be highly regulated so that special interest groups and individuals cannot unduly influence members of congress. With money more limited and perhaps campaign seasons shortened, members of congress can spend more of their time do the work they were elected to do and not have to campaign for funds so much of their time. Today members of senators spend two-thirds of the time fundraising according to former senator Tim Daschle or as 60 Minutes of CBS suggest today's election methods turn members of congress into telemarketers. After winning a special election in 2014 Republican David Jolly was sat down behind closed doors and was told, “You job, new member of Congress, is to raise $18,000 a day. Your first responsibility is to make sure you hit $18,000 a day.” Then members of congress are given access to places outside capital grounds to go and spend time on the phone fundraising (it is illegal to campaign on capitol grounds.) Since Citizen United v. FEC both parties have told new members they should spend 30 hours per week on calls.

It is time for significant changes in campaign laws.

I wish to share my thoughts on shifts in the political system I have seen in my lifetime and some general comments on our political system with definitions of several classic terms that are pertinent to debate on our political system. Take it for what it is worth. I hope you find it helpful.

Presidents I remember.

I was born in 1942 when Franklin D. Roosevelt was president. He was president from 1933 until 1945, dying in office and our only four-term president. His was a remarkable presidency helping the country with social programs following the Great Depression and initiating long lasting programs for the common good such as Social Security. He was a democrat and recognized as one of the great presidents of the country. Roosevelt ran against Herbert Hoover who has a rather poor record despite being from Iowa. Next he ran against Alfred Landon who opposed the New Deal that had brought country back strongly after the depression. Then he ran against Wendall Wilkie who spell check doesn’t even recognize. Finally Roosevelt ran against Thomas E. Dewey in 1944. There were differences between Roosevelt and all his opponents, but they were not all that great. What can be said is that Roosevelt was much more charismatic and had the greater vision for the country than his opponents.

Following Roosevelt in 1948, his last vice president Harry Truman (D) ran against Thomas E. Dewey (R). Truman was a plain spoken man from Missouri who is best known as the president who approved dropping the atom bomb on Japan and ending WWII. Dewey was expected to win and newspapers famously already had prepared headlines announcing a Dewey’s win; oops. There were other candidates: Thurmond and Wallace but didn’t affect the race very much. Truman is also noted for his phrase, “The buck stops here” referring to the responsibilities’ a president must shoulder. Again there were not wide differences between Democrats and Republicans.

Next is the election I remember fairly well. In 1952 Dwight D. Eisenhower (R) ran against Adlai E. Stevenson (D). Truman had decided not to run for a second term. Eisenhower was a famous general playing a significant role during WWII. He was very popular and had the famous slogan in the campaign, “I Like Ike.” Adlai Stevenson was lesser known and was characterized as an “Egghead.” All this seems to prove that the country has consistently liked war heroes and is suspicious of well-educated folk. Go figure. I was pleased to note at the time that whoever won would be a Presbyterian. Politically, Eisenhower could have run as either a democrat or a republican in good conscience there not being a huge divide between the parties, not unlike Colin Powell today. He initiated good number of programs that would be called liberal today. In the political spectrum he and Barack Obama would be very similar in political ideology. The election of 1956 was just a repeat of the ’52 election.

The election of 1960 is one I remember very well. The candidates were Richard M. Nixon (R) and vice president under Eisenhower and who had married Eisenhower’s daughter vs. the young and charismatic senator from Massachusetts, John F. Kennedy (D). This was also when TV debates were initiated. Nixon had a terrible 5 o’clock shadow and sweat a lot; Kennedy had the looks and demeanor and intelligence of a rock star. Kennedy’s presidency, cut short by his assassination is well remembered historically. He led the nation into a space race with Russia; he was the first Roman Catholic president, and the youngest president. He accomplished a remarkable amount during his short presidency and was a charismatic leader of the nation. Yet again, there was not a huge difference between the ideologies of the parties at that time.

Lyndon B. Johnson (D) became president following the assassination of President Kennedy. He ran for the presidency in 1964 against Barry Goldwater (R). I was in college at the time and found Goldwater very interesting and a purist as a Republican at the time. I voted for him but not many others did. I also greatly admired a young blonde lady I met in philosophy class, which may have led to my short foray as a Republican as we attending Young Republican rallies. Once again Republicans and Democrats were not widely divided with a Republican emphasis on business, very limited government regulations and generally against much change and Democrats more open to change with their emphasis on common workers and the common good restraining and regulating business through government regulations.

In 1968 Johnson chose not to run for president again, likely due to the unpopular Viet Nam war. Richard Nixon (R) ran against Hubert Humphrey (D) and George Wallace who represented radical right sentiments in the mix there as well. This was when violent protests of anti-war disrupted the Democratic convention in Chicago. Nixon was the law-and-order candidate with a “secret plan” to end the war. Again, not wide differences between the parties.

In 1972 President Nixon (R) ran against George McGovern (D) well know for his anti-war position despite a party split over that concern. The war was the primary issue of this campaign. Nixon won this election in a landside. It was during this presidency that Nixon resigned from the presidency due to the Watergate investigation where he was found culpable. Again, not a wide divide between parties with Nixon supporting many liberal common good causes in today’s terms.

In 1976 Jimmy Carter (D) ran against Gerald Ford (R) who had assumed the presidency after Nixon resigned from office. This was a close race with Carter as an outsider to Washington. Carter is often regarded as having the most active and most involved president having more influence after than during his presidency.

In 1980 President Carter (D) ran against Ronald Reagan (R). This, in my opinion is the beginning of the greater divide between Democrats and Republicans. Carter had been opposed by Edward Kennedy during the Democratic convention and Reagan’s opponent of George Bush at the Republican convention. Reagan won the race in a landslide and Republicans gained control of both houses of Congress. Reagan term saw cutbacks in social programs of the government, and emphasis over states rights vs national governmental power, and a significant changes in the tax program. This was the beginning of “trickle down economics” that had been previously demeaned by Republican leaders including George Bush who called it “Voodoo Economics” with the idea if major businesses other holders of great wealth receive tax deductions there would be greater profits and would “trickle down” to common workers. Reagan, as most Republican had supported a balanced budget for the nation. However, he made great increases to the military increasing expenditures and cutting taxes decreasing government income, and thus there was an significant increase in the national debt. Reagan promised it would work because of increased productivity. As most economists (Keynesian/supply and demand theories) predicted Reagan’s Austrian economic theory (Supply Side Economics) would fail. It has. And thus the big divide between the have’s and the have-not’s began. The highest tax rate before Reagan was 70% that Reagan lowered to 28% in 1986. Reagan increased the national debt from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. This is the beginning of significant divergences of the parties.

In 1984 Reagan ran against Walter Mondale for the presidency. It was a peaceful time and the economy seemed good, despite the huge increase in the national debt. The conditions led to Reagan’s re-election.

In 1988 George H.W. Bush (R) ran against Michael Dukakis (D). The times were large quiet and Bush easily won the election.

In 1992 Bill Clinton (D) ran against George H.W. Bush, with an interesting sideshow by Ross Perot. Again, the political climate was fairly calm but by this time Bush’s very high approval rate had diminished. Clinton’s big phrase for the day was, “It’s the economy stupid). While pushing social welfare programs Clinton was also strongly connected to business and Wall Street folk. Bush was the 4^th president to lose a re-election. Clinton seemed more popular candidate and was a centrist politically.

In 1996 Bill Clinton ran against Robert Dole. Clinton easily won the election. We still do not see great wide divides between the parties. What we did see was a diminished support of Democrats in the South. Prices for elections continued to escalate with the major candidates spending over $2 billion on the race; a increase of 33%. The high cost of campaigning has risen higher and higher and more time spent by congress members campaigning since then.

The year 2000 held the race for president between George W. Bush (R) and Al Gore.

For the 4^th time in history the candidate that won did not receive the highest popular vote. Still no wide divides between parties and the effects of “trickle down” economics is still debated. Though the debates were intense the political positions still were not that far apart.

President George W. Bush ran again John Kerry in 2004. There was a great voter turnout for this election, a 15 million increase. Voter irregularities continued to haunt the elections.

In 2008 Barack Obama (D) ran against John McCain (R). This was a historic election with Obama being the first black-America to become president. On the other hand, if McCain had run he would have been the oldest president in history and Sarah Palin the first woman Vice-President. It is interesting to note the amicability between the candidates.

It is important to note that the Tea Party came into being in February of 2009. Conservative activists to got together to fight against Obama’s agenda for the nation created the Party. They believed federal government was working against personal liberties. At this time we begin to see the greater divide between the political parties and more intense rhetoric as well. We also begin to see members of the Republican Party commit to confronting everything a sitting president was doing. FOX news also reflects this “my way or no way” type of thinking.

The next election in 2012 pits President Obama against Mitt Romney. Romney is the first Mormon to run for the office. The big issue of this time is the Supreme Court decision to allow increase political contributions in “Citizens United” in which, businesses could be regarded as “individuals”. This makes a major change in the cost of elections and the influence of wealthy over others.

And now comes the major change in the 2016 campaign for presidency between Donald J. Trump (R) who ran against Hillary Rodham Clinton. The divisiveness between the parties reached a level never seen before. Clinton became the first woman nominated by a major party as a candidate for president. Most political experts were stunned by Trump’s winning the presidency. However, again we find the candidate who won the popular vote losing the election.

The extreme negative rhetoric in politics is at a never been seen before height. The outright disregard of truth and fact has never been so extreme. We have never seen such a divide between the political parties and candidates, largely due to our President himself and the extremism of the Tea Party.

Political parties have undergone major changes over the years but perhaps none and large as we see today. In the days of Abraham Lincoln the Republicans were the liberal party and the Democrats were the conservatives. Teddy Roosevelt was elected by the Republican party and initiated broad liberal policies.

In the 30’s, 40’s, 50’s and throughout the 20^th century political parties were largely in the hands of party centrists so there were significant but not extreme party differences. That all changed in the 21^st century. Specifically, the Tea Party seized political power to push forward the agenda of extremists of the right. President Trump has milked this negatively to its fullest and is the spokesperson of extreme politics. It is frightening the power of this extreme attitude in our country.

Some key figures in the shift of the political spectrum to the right include Newt Gingrich, while sounding reasonable and flaunting a history degree displayed no computation about lying and fanning divisive fires along with FOX news that is not a news station but an extreme right editorial spokes station. Modern counterparts in this position would include Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham. Of note also should be the Tea Party as mentioned before and shock radio and TV personalities who cater to negative news and milking peoples fears.

Both parties spokespersons today seem to rely on the premise that who is the rudest and speaks the loudest and longest win debates. This is blatantly untrue and enhances lines of divisiveness and produces more political heat. What we lack in political discourse are listening skills and then cogent discussion about issues and honest depiction of differing political positions on issues. This may have been true in the past as well but has reached new highs currently.

As a Christian I have been pleased by assumption of good moral principles found in both parties. Respect for traditions but not enslaved to them; a belief in the need of a “loyal opposition”. That I can no longer believe as we have a president who seems to totally lack in the teachings of Jesus and the ethics of the bible. I am amazed that the conservative churches that hold Trump in high esteem when he exhibits none of the morality of Christianity or of any religious teaching.

Overall there has been a significant shift to the right in both parties. Republicans today would be where the extreme right used to be in the political spectrum. Most Democrats are where moderate Republicans used to be. Clinton and Obama are good examples of this. Progressives such as Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth are labeled as extremists/socialists by the right, whereas they are seen as centrists in modern Europe.

Terms in vogue also show this shift in labels and viewpoints. The right and members of the left proclaim they are capitalists and then conservatives label progressives as socialists. This is all hype. We have not had a capitalist country almost since the beginning of the country. Rules holding capitalist excesses have been part of the roll of government for a long time; perhaps the Sherman Antitrust Act is the best example. What we have had in this country is a mixed economy – private ownership of most of the enterprises except when it is deemed that government control is in the best interest of the country such as the Postal System. Socialism, by definition is where the government owns the means of production as was true in the Union of Socialist Republics (USSR). The predominant system in developed countries today are mixed economies, capitalist/free enterprise system that use government run systems that are for the common good of people such as: free education, government supported daycare, minimum wages, free health care, and retirement funds for the elderly (social security.) The previous is also known as democratic socialism, the means of production largely in private hands except for the places that work for the common good.

The mark of civilization has been seen as to how well a society cares for it’s poor, disabled, and elderly. Barbarians are those who wish to live by power and force of one individual or group at the expense of others.

One final definition it is well to understand – oligarchy, which means government controlled by the wealthy. That is currently what I believe we have with a mix of fascism/totalitarianism – a form of government that is a type of one-party dictatorship. This is how President Trump appears to see his office, one where “I can do anything I want.” It is, for lack of a better term, evil. I shudder to use that term, but now have a new appreciation of Hitler’s Germany where a majority had been lead astray by hateful rhetoric to embrace the fascist state Hitler led.

Another poignant point I want to lift up is the funding for those running for office. Until we get private funding without limits on individual and companies, we cannot hope for a working democracy. Citizens United is another huge block for a true democracy. Until we have financial campaign limits, such as a small dollar amount as part of our taxes, oligarchy threatens.

If you have gotten to this point in this article I hope it has been helpful in understanding pertinent terms and the direction our country has been changing in my lifetime. It is not held as absolute truth but is intended to be as objective as I can and part of the ongoing debate about the proper role of government.

A final graph on the government’s deficit belying the claim the Republican's are more fiscally responsible than Democrats.

President Trump has continued the Republic spending habit to the tune of $1.1 trillion.