You are on page 1of 8

Brandon Kopp

According to a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center, 44% of Americans


identify with the Democratic Party and 43% identify with the Republican Party. The split in
parties is very noticeable, and shows in the way both parties legislate using very partisan
approaches. The two parties are more split than ever on every issue in the book. The cultures of
both parties is very different, and its reflected by their core beliefs. Hofstedes cultural
dimensions split the parties in many aspects such as term limits; long term versus short term,
defense spending; the Power Distance index, and fiscal policy; indulgence versus restraint.
The first of the issues is that of term limits. Applying Hofstedes cultural dimensions
theory of short term vs long term orientation, the two political parties both share long term
orientation on the topic of term limits. Republicans see term limits as a way to stop career
politicians and interest group from taking over the government. This is shown when Hall (2014)
says there was widespread Republican support for the reforms in the early 1990s (pg.408). The
democrats see no term limits as a way to get quality politicians who know how the position they
hold works. They believe that politicians who only serve a few terms dont develop the same
respect for the system that politicians who have the opportunity to serve for many years do. As
Hall said Democrats see term limits as an attack on the continued dominance of the Democratic
Party (p.408). Although the two parties hold different views on term limits, they both want
whats best for America in the long term and have different ways of achieving this success.
The Republican Party is generally known to accept the idea of term limits. There are
many reasons a Republican may support term limits, but, as Hall (2014) wrote, term limits has
had more a drastic effect on Democrats, usually leading to a more significant loss in power for
Democrats rather than Republicans. Aside from some real concerns this shows some political
incentive for Republicans to support term limits. Republicans make many valid points in support

Brandon Kopp

of term limits, but, like many political issues on both sides of the isle, term limits has some
political gain in Republicans favor. Aside from political gain, Republicans feel so passionately
about term limits because it stops the massive fundraising of money for career politicians. Hall
writes after term limits were implemented there was a change in typically partisan interest
group contributions (P.411). This shows that term limits diminish the power of interest groups
and the effect they have on career politicians. Republicans overall support term limits whether it
be for genuine concerns over career politicians or minor political gains.
Democrats have openly fought the idea of implementing term limits on a state or national
level. They suggest that term limits blocks young politicians from building a political career. As
Vandusky-Allen (2014) writes, states with no term limits attract the more professional
politicians because they are given more resources and are able to build a career (P.440).
Democrats suggest when giving somebody more incentive a better quality legislator will be
produced instead of a mediocre temporary one. Many senior Democratic politicians suggest that
the time they have been in congress has given them expertise that new members would never be
able to obtain. Democrats say its not only them, but also Republicans who benefit from this
experience. Hall (2014) says the removal of senior member would be a significant loss for both
parties and their interest groups (p.417). Democrats insist term limits would hurt American
politics, because it would remove all the senior members that know the system better than
anybody else.
Term limits are often associated with power. When using Hofstedes cultural dimensions
to examine power disparity, Republicans have a higher power distance index and Democrats
have a lower index. Republicans accept that power is unequally distributed in Americas favor,
which makes them more tolerant of a high power index. They usually not afraid to use it in order

Brandon Kopp

to keep peace. Democrats believe that we should not bully countries that cannot compete with us
and believe power should be more evenly distributed around the world. They believe our focus
should be more on income inequality and often demonstrate a desire for a lower power distance
index. The power distance index is differently perceived by both parties, and it shows in the
different ways they legislate defense spending.
On the issue of defense spending, Republicans have often been called the Power Party.
The Republicans prefer to project our strength through military power. Continetti (2007) wrote
the Republican party is increasingly linked with maintenance and projection of American
military power (p.17). Instead of staying out of foreign conflicts that deal with American
interests, Republicans prefer to govern through Peace through strength (Reagan 1980).
Republicans tend to rely on the military more than Democrats. As Continetti said, people will be
more eager to use American military force if it is truly believed to be a force for good.
Republicans believe the best way to keep our country and achieve peace is through the military.
In contrast to the Republican Power Party, Democrats are often referred to as the Peace
Party. Continetti (2007) writes the Democrats believe American involvement around the world is
not always necessary and U.S. should remain more neutral. As Continetti said The Democratic
Party is increasingly linked with attitudes, tendencies, and policies of peace (p.17). Democrats
dont believe many foreign conflicts require American involvement. They believe all countries
can do what they please. Many Democrats were unhappy about the support that the invasion of
Iraq garnered in 2003. Berman (2010) describes Walter Deans comments at a 2003 DNC
meeting and quotes him as saying why in the world the Democratic Party leadership is
supporting the presidents unilateral attack on Iraq (p.15). This example demonstrates that
Democrats are often unhappy even when some of the party supports a movement to use force

Brandon Kopp

against a foreign foe. Democrats believe that, to have peace in America, we must demonstrate
peace around the world and not use military force unless we absolutely have to.
Defense is a large expenditure of the U.S. Observing Hofstedes dimension of
indulgence versus restraint, Democrats clearly indulge in programs investing in the future more
than their Republican counterparts who show more spending restraint and see these investments
as non-essential. As Hoven (2010) points out, spending on programs nearly doubled in the two
years after Bush left office. Democrats see spending as a stimulant for the economy and are
never scared to fund another program if they deem it necessary. Republicans have more restraint
when talking about money because they see spending as a negative on the economy, but make an
exception for programs such as defense. The indulgence vs restraint patterns are very clearly
demonstrated if both parties spending policies and habits are examined.
The Republican Party is known for having very conservative fiscal policies. They tend to
usually cut spending and lower taxes. Cutting spending on programs viewed as non-essential is a
main priority of the Republican Party. Hirsh (2013) writes Republicans have locked in the
Sequester which cuts 21 billion dollars across the board. This cut in spending shows Republicans
prefer not to fund programs they see as wasteful and add to the federal deficit. They mainly see
these programs as non-essential but there are a few thing Republican refuse to defund such as
defense spending. Before the 2013 government shutdown, Republicans saw the shutdown as an
opportunity to force cuts in spending. They used leverage against the White House. As Fox
(2013) wrote they can modify their message and actually achieve the spending cuts they have
long fought for. When the option is on the table, Republicans will always try to cut spending
from what they view as non-essential programs. Only things such as a strong military and low

Brandon Kopp

corporate taxes are viewed as essential by the party. Republicans are more fiscally conservative,
and it shows in their spending and tax policies.
The Democratic Party is known for being more liberal with spending. They spend more
money in order to fund more programs. Democrats believe spending will stimulate the economy
and it shows in the constant battles in congress. Fox (2013) writes the Obama administration
has asked to increase the debt limit (p.1). This explains that Democrats want to fund programs
and other things by raising our debt limit in order to stimulate the economy. Democrats very
rarely agree to cut something from the budget. Fox (2013) writes Democrats see the debt ceiling
being raised as a non-negotiable issue. Democrats refuse to defund programs they see as
essential and are willing to fight to the edge of the cliff with Republicans. They continue to
spend money in order to invest in safety nets, infrastructure, and education Democrats will
always want spend money to stimulate the economy and to continue to fund any programs that
they view as essential.
Fiscal policy is one of the many issues that split the two parties. Hofstedes cultural
dimensions shows fundamentally and culturally where the parties are so split on many key
issues. The parties fundamentally do not see eye to eye when it comes to term limits, defense,
and fiscal policy. They fall onto different ends of the spectrum on each cultural dimension except
that of long term vs short term. The two parties are so polarized many things that need to get
done in congress no longer do. The parties must see that they differ fundamentally and culturally
and strive to meet somewhere in the middle like our country did in the past.

Brandon Kopp

References
Berman, A. (2010). Herding donkeys: The fight to rebuild the Democratic Party and reshape
American politics. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
Continetti, M. (2007, January 8). The Peace Party vs. the Power Party. The Weekly Standard,
12(16), 17-24.
Fox, L. (2013, August 30). Two Fiscal Fights. U.S. News Digital Weekly, 5(35), 8.
Hall, A. B. (2014). Partisan Effects of Legislative Term Limits. Legislative Studies Quarterly,
39(3), 407-429.
Hirsh, M. (2013, October 19). Republicans Lost the Shutdown Battle, but They're Winning the
Fiscal War. National Journal, 5.
Vandusky-Allen, J. (2014). The Conditional Effect of Term Limits on Electoral Activities.
Politics & Policy, 42(3), 431-458.
Hoven, R. (2010, August 22). Articles: Iraq: The War That Broke Us -- Not. The American
Thinker, Retrieved October 15, 2015.

Brandon Kopp

Running Head: THE FUNDAMENTAL AND CULTERAL DIFFERENCES OF AMERICAS


TWO PARTIES

The Fundamental and Cultural Differences of Americas Two Parties:


Brandon Kopp
University of Kentucky

Brandon Kopp

Abstract
Hofstedes cultural dimensions split the parties in many aspects such as term limits; long
term versus short term, defense spending; the Power Distance index, and fiscal policy;
indulgence versus restraint. This looks at the dynamics of key issues and how it divides the two
parties fundamentally and culturally. It is seen on some issue how their views may fundamentally
differ but culturally are the same. Although they differ on issues both parties only want whats
best for the nation and believe the way they go about solving issues is the best way. There will
always be disagreement in politics but thats what makes the American system great and this
country so culturally dynamic.

You might also like