Description of Political Party Preference in our Society Essay
1067 Words5 Pages
Growing up, I have always heard my parents discuss their political party preferences on many different issue. There are many differences between the two major political parties Democratic and Republican. Each one of those parties has their own beliefs and they can be similar, but some may be different in many different issues. With time, personal experience, and with reading on many different issues, I have realized that I am more of a liberal democrat and not a conservative republican. I looked at each parties beliefs on the issues of welfare, abortion, gun control, education and defense spending. .
As a Democrat, I am support our current welfare system. I believe in helping the needy and increasing minimum wage. The…show more content…
Republicans believe that the fetus should be protected from the moment of conception and not six months of pregnancy. The Republican Party wants abortion to be illegal, Republicans think abortion is like a murder, killing innocent humans. Abortion is an intensely personal decision between a woman, her family, her doctor, and possibly her clergy. I believe there is no place for politicians or government to get in the way of the woman choice. Only women can make the decision to have an abortion and they do have the right to do so under Roe v Wade. For example, I had a friend who got pregnant. She was not married and did not way to have a baby because she just start college and cannot support a child. Even though she had many choices, she decided to have an abortion to continue to complete her education. If my friend did not have a choice to get an abortion she most likely would of not completed college. I am in support of the woman’s abortion rights.
Gun Control: I hate guns. I think guns are responsible for many crimes and unjust deaths.. The Democrat Party believes this issue needs reform; they favor gun control laws and oppose the right to carry concealed weapons in public places. Many states have “Stand Your Ground” laws, which justify the use of deadly force when they are threatened. This is supported by the Republican Party. For example in February 2012 the Trayvon Martin shooting was an example of an unarmed black teenager, was shot and killed by a
On humiliation: No prize fighter likes to lurch into the ring certain he will have his head handed to him. But if he has chosen that profession, the fighter is obliged to do the best he can with what he has. Dishonor comes not from defeat but from taking a dive, which is what the Republican leadership of New York proposes to do.
But it is the ''ideological compatibility'' reason that is the most pernicious and which transforms a local cave-in to a national political concern. It goes to the question of why political parties exist.
Some ideologues insist that a political party exists to propound a particular point of view - liberal, conservative, or some single issue. To these neat-minded souls, liberal Repubicans should leave to find their home in the Democratic Party and conservative Democrats should leap over to the Republican.
However, ''big tent'' proponents hold that a party is a root to power and should accommodate many views: that is why the parties overlap, although the center of gravity of the Republican Party is to the right of the Democratic Party. The genius of this two-party system, as it exists today, is that change can be substantial without being wrenching.
I like that ''big tent'' theory. It is an American invention that has worked remarkably well, helping to make us the most stable democracy on earth. But a threat to that unique system comes from those who insist that parties should represent ideologies, like Labor versus Conservative in Britain, or the parties of the left versus the parties of the right in France.
The neat-minded are prone to take the next jump and to say that party politics has no place in local affairs -that ''there is no Democratic or Republican way to clean the streets.''
City government is not street-cleaning. Every government at every level cries out for opposition to protect it from the arrogance of power and the power of arrogance.
Mayor Koch, on the contrary, wants ''fusion,'' recollecting the fusion candidacy of Fiorello LaGuardia. But Mayor LaGuardia's fusion was that of a Republican with other minor parties to oppose the Democrats' Tammany machine and to produce a fight. Koch's fusion would be to unite Republicans and Democrats and deny a fight - or leave it to New York's ideological parties to produce one.
The Mayor's pitch is seductive: he says he would be able to get more for New York from the Reagan Administration by claiming to be a Republican-Democrat. If such a political pushmi-pullyu is created, then what is left of the liberal wing of the Republican Party - based in cities, where more minority votes are - will shrivel and die. Goodbye, Republican big tent, hello, ideological purity - and hello ultimate Democratic triumph.
The new Republican Chairman of New York State, George Clark, who put together the deal to turn the election into a coronation, is making a profound political mistake. In his yearning not to lose, he denies Republicans the right to vote for their own candidate. If he is going to rubber stamp the Democratic nominee, who needs a Republican Chairman or a Republican Party?
Fortunately, an Assemblyman from Queens, John Esposito, has risen to enter the primary and perhaps spoil Mr. Clark's sellout. I hope Republicans - even those who would vote for Mayor Koch in a general election -vote for Mr. Esposito, whoever he is, to repel the boarding party and avert the disgrace of a surrender.
Sure-losing may be hard but forfeiture is an abomination. The message is the same to Republicans in big cities as it is to liberal Democrats in conservative bastions: if you can't lick 'em, keep fighting 'em. It keep 'em honest.Continue reading the main story