Important differences between Democrats and Republicans were revealed recently by Ezra Klein in The New York Times (see here). Mr. Klein was laser-focused as he encapsulated the current Democratic party (see below).

Democrats according to Klein

Democrats are united in their belief that the government can, and should, act on behalf of the public. To be on the party’s far left is to believe the government should do much more. To be among its moderates is to believe it should do somewhat more. But all of the people elected as Democrats, from Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez to Senator Joe Manchin, are there for the same reason: to use the power of the government to pursue their vision of the good. The divides are real and often bitter. But there is always room for negotiation because there is a fundamental commonality of purpose.

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THAT? What grade does Mr. Klein deserve for his summary of the Democrats? I THINK HE EARNED A SOLID A. Next, let’s take a look at  his views of the Republican party (see segment below).

Republicans according to Klein

The modern Republican Party, by contrast, is built upon a loathing of the government. Some of its members want to see the government shrunk and hamstrung. This is the old ethos, best described by Grover Norquist, the anti-tax activist who famously said: “I don’t want to abolish government. I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.”

WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THAT? Please give Mr. Klein a grade. He seems to have sharpened his pen here, and even tossed in a bit of exaggeration. Nonetheless, he touched on some truths.  I AWARDED HIM WITH A C FOR HIS EFFORT.

Relevance of the above differences

As voters, I would argue, we have an obligation to examine diverging political views and actions, and to determine how they affect us individually, and our nation as well. Since we obviously can’t see into the future, the best we can do is to peek into the past to see how things have gone after government expands, or after it contracts. With this in mind, I’ll take a brief look at the impact of two examples of governmental expansion, specifically laws that were intended to act on the behalf of the public. In a later post, I’ll look at the obverse side of the coin.

Governmental laws on behalf of college students

The government has acted generously on behalf college students. In 1965, Washington began providing eligible students with Federal Pell grants, which provided funds for expenses needed for students to attend colleges and universities. The establishment of Pell grants basically marked the beginning of a series of governmental laws (summarized here) intended to provide considerable cash as loans and whatnot for financially-strapped college students. How has that worked out?

Over 25 years ago, then Secretary of Education William J. Bennett, argued that, contrary to the intentions of policymakers, increased federal aid actually was making college less affordable (“Our Greedy Colleges,” New York Times, Feb 18, 1987). Bennett argued that the increases in financial aid had enabled colleges and universities to blithely raise their tuitions, confident that Federal loan subsidies would help cushion the increased burden. (For a detailed discussion of this topic, see my earlier post on exorbitant college costs (click here).

Since then, college tuitions and fees have continued to rocket upward to astronomical levels. According to USA Today, in June of this year the student loan debt balance in the U.S. totaled more than $1.77 trillion, having increased by 66% over the past decade. Individual students today not infrequently graduate indebted by hundreds of thousands of dollars, a result probably not intended by the legislators who authorized the funds.

Students’ loss, higher education’s gain

There also have been obvious winners, especially those employed in higher education. Increasingly flush with cash, many colleges and universities have doled out grossly inflated salaries to faculty and administrators. To cite one example from my alma mater, the University of Wisconsin-Madison, the annual salary of Chancellor Donna Shalala in 1988 (a time when tuitions had already doubled from two decades earlier) was $95,000; by 2019, Chancellor Rebecca Blank’s salary was $582,607.

The upward swing persists. In mid-2022, the University of Wisconsin Regents hired Jennifer Mnookin to be the new chancellor at a base salary of $750,000. My quick adjustment for inflation revealed that Chancellor Shalala’s salary in 2022 dollars would be $235,365, thus the inflation-adjusted value of the chancellor’s salary has more than tripled since Donna Shalala presided there. Go Badgers!

The question for us common people to answer, I suggest, is whether we favor what Washington has done for college students, or not. Our answer conceivably could influence which party we affiliate with, and how we vote.

Governmental laws on behalf of medical patients

This is a second area in which the government has done much on behalf of citizens. Few, I think, would deny that. One can find a listing of the major “health” laws by clicking here. You probably know, from personal experiences and from reports of family and friends, how that legislation has worked out. Some examples follow.

If you’ve been on this earth for several decades, you’ll remember when your doctor looked at you during an appointment, rather than focusing on a computer screen. You will remember that your physician was in private practice (not a salaried employee), and that telephone calls to your physician were answered promptly by a receptionist or nurse employed by that doctor, and that you could get a medical appointment within days or even hours, not weeks or months as it usually takes today. In those past days, there was no “health care industry,” and a time when a visit to the emergency often cost under $100, not the $1,000s or more for brief visits so typical these days. It was a time when few people even carried health insurance because medical costs were reasonable, and individuals who couldn’t afford to pay their medical bills usually had them written off by doctors and hospitals. That’s the way it was when I graduated from medical school.

It’s worth knowing that more changes in our medical care may be coming. Certain politicians today are eager to pass even more laws on behalf of patients, for example, laws establishing a “single payer” system, and laws eliminating private medical insurance, and much more. Will the potential effects of these proposed changes be beneficial? That seems to be another key question that cannot be answered with certainty. What do you think? Do you favor further changes, or not?

Again, our views on the significant changes in our medical care and its soaring costs may also influence the party we affiliate with, and how we vote.

A broader view and final questions

Clearly, there are important differences between Democrats and Republicans. And the above two examples naturally represent only a fraction of governmental influences on our daily lives, many of them vital, such as those affecting our personal liberties, our public safety, our economy, and the security of our borders. Nonetheless, the examples I cited were enacted “on behalf of the public,” “to pursue their vision of the good” to use Mr. Klein’s phrases (their vision, of course, refers to the vision of “good” according to the Democrats).  Having considered all of that, I suppose it is a mysterious mix of these multiple governmental roles that somehow determines our own political views. If so, that raises interesting questions for all of us, which are: can we identify the specific factors that generated our personal political views? Do we know why we call ourselves a Democrat, a Republican, an Independent, a Socialist, or a Communist? Were we influenced by family views, or opinions of friends and colleagues, or our natural kindness for others, or our independence? Or have other factors influenced us? Have we carefully examined our current candidates, or what they promise, or do we automatically lean toward someone who represents the party we identify with? I’ve had a go at all of these questions. Believe me, it was a chore. If you give them a try, have fun!

Alert, next time I’ll continue my exploration of important differences between Democrats and Republicans, focusing on the party that loathes government.