Does Our Regime Change Make a Difference?

Folks on the political left and right, whether they support Ralph Nader, the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, or another group, often complain that it makes no real difference which of the two major parties are in power: their policies don’t differ enough from each other to give the people a real choice. To some extent, I understand this viewpoint.

Consider U.S. foreign policy as it looks right now under the incoming Democratic Obama administration. We’re still planning to be in Iraq a while, and are envisioning an escalation of war and U.S. troop buildup in Afghanistan. While keeping in place the same Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, from the outgoing Republican Bush administration. So it seems as if the American people didn’t really enjoy a choice in the general election about the wars we are engaged in.

Look at the economic recession and the meltdown of financial companies and the U.S. automobile industry. The transition from Bush to Obama regarding government bailouts and loans appears to be almost seamless, with the main difference between the two being that one (Bush) hates labor unions and wants to blame them for the auto industry’s woes.

The dangerous trend toward government surveillance of its own citizens on the pretext of fighting terrorism is obviously a by-product of Bush’s policies. But Obama, in his role as senator, has also supported extending surveillance of Americans.

Regarding gay rights, particularly as they pertain to the current hot-button issue of gay marriage, both Bush and Obama seem to be on the wrong side of this issue, although Obama “appears” to generally support gay rights.

What about our policy about illegal immigration? Once again, Bush and Obama present very similar agendas on this issue, this time showing a more inclusive, constructive approach to the problem. Naturally, this doesn’t fly too well with those who want to build a wall covering our borders.

Of course, there are important areas in which the two parties differ a lot.

Obama wants to change Bush’s tax cuts to where they favor lower and middle class taxpayers more than the wealthy. He also plans to begin an ambitious public works program designed to repair and improve the country’s transportation and communications infrastructure, while steering our economy in a “greener”, more environmentally-friendly direction. Speaking of the environment, he also believes that more should be done to fight global warming. Obama fully supports federally-funded stem cell research. And he is bound to nominate judges who are more likely to support the 1973 Supreme Court Roe vs. Wade decision that legalized abortion on a national level.

So basically, with a few very big differences, those in the far-left and the far-right are correct in asserting that there is too much continuity of policy that occurs when one major party transfers power to the other. It does sometimes seem that we, the voters, have been shortchanged, even disenfranchised, doesn’t it? But let me add one very, very important point.

Look at countries in other parts of the world where one party has dominated politics for decades on end, even though free elections are regularly held. What incentive exists for those in power there to truly serve their people’s interests when they see almost no danger of being turned out of office? And what about a country ruled by an individual who clings to power at all costs, even at the expense of the lives of his own people? Case in point: Zimbabwe, where Robert Mugabe absolutely refuses to transfer the reins of power to anyone else. What if, instead, there had been a two-party system there (even with each party expressing very similar takes on the issues), that every few years had caused power to shift from one party to the other? Yes, perhaps the voters might have felt a little cynical that their votes didn’t seem to make much of a difference. But the act of changing the people in power every few years is in itself very valuable and protects the people from having to endure rule that is mired in corruption and even possibly dictatorial (which is sadly the road that Putin’s Russia, a country that I greatly respect, seems to currently be traveling down).
********************************************************
Yes, I wrote something for Saturday although I had earlier said that I was going to take that day of the week off from blogging. Maybe in the future I'll just publish a photo of something that interests me on Saturdays instead.