Democrat or Republican

Americans have the power to elect a leader who they deem fit to lead them. The population elects its desired leader based on the policies and political manifestos that points out on what such leaders would do for them once in office. Normally, this is the right time to put in power a party with a vision for America.

In the next general elections, I will be voting for the Democrats because the party has a leader who has a spirit to make a better tomorrow for the Americans by creating jobs, improving healthcare, taxation policies among other things. One of the most comprehensive strengths is the health care policy that has been introduced by the Democrats.

In my personal opinion, the Republican Party is on the line again to mislead people so that they can get their votes. We require political scientists to educate and guide people on political issues especially on issues of diversity as people have little information on the role of diversity.

This fact has been noted by Kanthak and Krause (842) who assert that ”political scientists are keenly interested in how diversity influences politics, yet we know little about how diverse groups of political actors interact.” When the Republicans were in power, there were allegations of inhuman treatment especially in Iraq. A good example is the torture of prisoners at Abu Graib prisons by American soldiers.

The Republicans insist on a single party system of government. This sounds more of dictatorial than plain governance. During the past year when America had only one party to rule, the ordinary citizens had nobody to represent their claims in the government (Besley, Persson and Sturm 1341). All over the world, single party governance is associated with dictatorial and lack of respect for human rights. Sinlge party leadership also lacks respect for voter’s rights.

Another issue that makes me detest the Republican was their policy on the war in Iraq. This war claimed the lives of many American soldiers and although they are currently compensated, the government took unnecessarily long time before the compensation was done. The delayed pay can be attributed to the lack of touch with the populace that characterized the Republican leadership.

According to Kanthak and Krause (844), the afflictions of the Iraq veterans can be equated to the problems of being from a minority group, since the government had other issues to address at the expense of the soldiers. They quote that “…..group size affects how members of a political organization differentially value majority and minority group colleagues…” (Kanthak and Krause 844). In this case, this party has no point in promising peace to the American citizens.

By the time the Democrats took over office form the republicans, the American economy was suffering from one of its worst depressions which, according to some financial analyst, was caused by unsound financial policies.

Led by President Obama and the Federal Reserves leader Ben Bernanke, the republican aggressively saved the Americans from incurring further losses due to their urgency in arresting the problem. This is an indication that the Democrats have the interest of the people at heart as opposed to the leaders of the Republican Party.

The Democrats argue that the Democrat political party was formed with an aim of ensuring that America is not ruled by wealth and privilege, but rather by the value of hard work and justice. America became the World’s number one country by giving the citizens an opportunity to write their own constitution to govern them and by rewarding their hardwork and not the greed.

The Democrats are promising to fight the greed attitude and take the economy of the country where it ought to be. At the same time, the party is fighting to provide the people with the necessary information on the voting rights and protection of a voter.

Although it is true that I support the Democratic Party, I do not underscore the importance of having other parties as the main challengers. There is a need to have political competition in order to boost economic growth.

Whereas I have my own personal issues with policies of the Republicans, its role in ensuring that the Democrats deliver to the populace cannot be ignored. Besley, Persson and Sturm (1333) notes that the role of a competing party cannot be ignored as single party leadership appears to be less development conscious.

In their work Besley, Persson and Sturm (1333) write, ”… we find robust evidence that lack of political competition in a state is associated with anti-growth policies: higher taxes, lower capital spending, and a reduced likelihood of using right-to-work laws. We also document a strong link between low political competition and low income growth.”

While assuming office, the Democrats promised to put in place policies that would ensure that the financial position of the people was improved. It is important to note that due to the harsh economic times, most of the Americans are opting to delay their retirement dates as this is seen as the only way to guarantee a comfortable future. This is an indication that the financial position of the American people has deteriorated after the economic crunch.

Although the problem was quickly addressed by the Democrats once they assumed office, there are areas that need to be improved. The confidence that Obama’s government accrued to itself after it reversed the economic trends during the period of economic crisis makes them have a huge following of Americans as people are still optimistic that their financial positions will improve.

Through the American Jobs Act, the Democrats promises to put more people to work and give them fare remuneration. These include the teachers and construction workers. Employment of construction workers would be of great benefit to the overall infrastructural sector as a big section of the roads in America requires to be repaired and others constructed afresh. America has highly qualified engineers and construction workers who can plan and renovate the transport and communication networks.

In this way, these workers will earn a substantial amount of money for their living and also this will help ease the congestion in the busy roads and airways. With an improved infrastructural network, various companies will easily and conveniently sell their goods in the local market and also abroad in the international market.

Further, the Democrats proposed that every company that hires a worker or raises the salaries of its workers will get tax subsidies. Offering tax incentives to the businesses is a perfect way of ensuring that the entire economy is not stagnated as the efforts of the government will be supplemented by the private sector (Cooper et al 691). By so doing, they will encourage managers of these companies to employ more people with an aim of cutting down on the tax expense.

Similarly, the taxation rates for the small businesses will be lowered and as a result, these businesses have chances of expanding into large businesses or companies and thus create more employment opportunities for the citizens of America. By so doing, the government of the United States of America will encourage more investors to invest their money into the available businesses or even start new ones and thus improve the economy.

The Democrat leaders have a great as far as education is concerned. Although they took office while the No Child Left Behind Act was already operational, their roles in ensuring that the act is followed to the latter has shown immense positive results. Aghion et al (12), the current administration ahs provided the avenues that lacked before for effective governance of education affairs.

Nicholson and Heit (1509) further assert that the role of the current leadership in effective provision of the needed impetus for effective implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act. This also gives me another reason to opt to vote for the Democrats as opposed to the Republicans.

It is important to note that the American soldiers risk their lives fighting for the freedom of their families and the nation as a whole. Thus, it is important that these war veterans are well taken care off once they leave the military.

Ethically, it is wrong for such people to lack job opportunities and the chance to enjoy peace, despite their sacrifices for the nation. In its pursuit of service delivery to its citizens, the Democrats have promised to create more job opportunities for the veterans who get back home safe (Schreiber 630).

Contrary to the Republican leaders, the Democrats should emphasize on the importance of good relations and peace with other countries such as Iraq and understand the religions of other people to avoid conflicts. It is important that religious diversity is respected in international affairs.

The Democrats have managed to be more objective in respecting religious diversity unlike the Republican leadership that, according to Froese and Mencken (110), lacked respect for diversity. According to Froese and Mencken (110), “Bush’s presentation of the Iraq War highlights the religious relevance of the war with numerous references to God, religious faith, and the Bible.”

In conclusion, it is worth noting that based on the overwhelming win that characterize the 2008 elections, majority of the Americans supports the Democrats policies on overall governance of the country.

This is the kind of leadership for Americans, a leadership that understands the needs of its citizens and cares for them. Leaders should be on the leading line to campaign for peace among nations. War is not the solution to all the differences that occur, but results to more harm than good. At times, diplomacy would work better as compared to missiles.

A lot of money is used by the government to buy these weapons of war and to cater for its soldiers. These funds could be used to in other projects such as education. This fact was noted by Martin Luther King, Jr. who quotes ”A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual doom” (Hoffman, 452).

Works Cited

Aghion Philippe, Dewatripont Mathias, Hoxby Caroline, Colell Mas-Andreu and Sapir Andre’. The governance and performance of universities: evidence from Europe and the US. Economic Policy.25 (61) Pp7-59. 2010. Print.

Besley,Timothy, Persson Torsten and Sturm M. Daniel. Political Competition, Policy and Growth: Theory and Evidence from the US. Review of Economic Studies.77 (4) Pp1329–1352. 2010. Print.

Cooper ,J. Michael, Gulen Huseyin and Ovtchinnikov. Corporate Political Contributions and Stock Returns. The Journal of Finance. 65 (2). Pp. 687-724. 2010. Print.

Froese, Paul and Mencken F. Carson. A U.S. Holy War? The Effects of Religion on Iraq War Policy Attitudes. Social Science Quarterly. 90 (1). Pp. 103–116. 2009. Print.

Hoffman, Michael. What explains attitudes across US trade policies? Public choice. 138(3- 4). Pp 447-460. 2009. Print.

Kanthak Kristin and Krause A. George. Valuing Diversity in Political Organizations: Gender and Token Minorities in the U.S. House of Representatives. American Journal of Political Science. 54 (4). Pp 839-854. 2010. Print.

Nicholson P. Stephen and Heit Evan. The Opposite of Republican: Polarization and Political Categorization. Cognitive Science. 34 (8). Pp. 1503-1516. 2010. Print.

Schreiber, Darren. Red Brain, Blue Brain: Evaluative Processes Differ in Democrats and Republicans. Journal of Political Science. 54 (4). Pp. 624-639.