Nationalists vs. Socialists

I once told a group of European journalists they could think of America's two political parties as the Nationalists and the Socialists. It would be unfair to apply these monikers to most elected politicians, but I think they fit the party platforms fairly well.

Consider the state platform (at www.wsrp.org) of the Republicans. It is nationalist from trunk to tail. It is for the war on terror. It wants no U.S. soldiers under United Nations or NATO command, being "against the subjugation of the national sovereignty to any foreign or international body." It wants to deny U.S. citizenship to "the babies of illegal aliens" by reinterpreting the 14th Amendment. It wants to keep "under God" in the Pledge.

The Democratic platform (at www.wa-democrats.org) is written as if nationalism followed logically after racism, sexism and speciesism. It says, "The U.S. must work cooperatively with other countries to promote a sustainable, nonviolent world." It endorses a long list of U.N. treaties and a U.S. Department of Peace. It is against the war in Iraq. It opposes "discrimination based upon immigration status," presumably meaning that illegals shall, as policy, be treated as legitimate residents.

Each platform singles out a foreign country for special favor. The Republicans want to protect Israel. The Democrats want to trade with Cuba.

Consider the Democrats' list of basic human rights: "Food, shelter, access to quality health care, education and employment opportunity." Our Constitution recognizes rights to do things or to be treated a certain way. The Democrats' rights are rights to be provided with stuff. Indeed, much of the Democratic platform — which is twice as long as the Republicans' — reads like a petition for More Stuff for Us.

The Democrats also want to reinterpret the 14th Amendment. "Multinational corporations are not legal persons entitled to equal protection under the 14th Amendment," they say. (No due process for you, Boeing!)

My eyes widen at the media plank, which says, "We believe the public owns the broadcast airwaves and the Internet, which should be managed to serve the public interest. We support ... ensuring that media license holders provide diverse programming ... increased funding for public broadcasting including documentary films and noncommercial news programs; [and] establishing a system for community-level, nonprofit and noncommercial radio and TV."

This feels socialist to me, but maybe I'm just sensitive.

Compared with the Democrats' cocoon of security, the Republican platform reads as if the welfare state had never been built. The exception (surprise!) is farmers. The Republicans want government to "establish a strong and secure domestic food supply that is not dependant on foreign products." They also want to extend tax-subsidized irrigation in the Columbia Basin.

Both parties are for freedom. The Republicans are for freedom to vote and participate in voter initiatives, freedom to donate money to political campaigns, freedom to conduct private business, freedom to use land, freedom to control a child's education and express religion in school and freedom to shoot guns. The Democrats are for freedom from discrimination and police mistreatment, and freedom to end one's own life or to kill a fetus.

In each platform are bows to moderation. The Republicans salute the value of labor unions and public schools, then support vouchers, charters and right-to-work laws. The Democrats oppose the taking of land "on behalf of a private developer," though generally they are unsympathetic to landowners. They quietly support retention of the Snake River dams.

I looked for the Democratic Party plank from earlier years for legalization of marijuana. That one was laughed at, and it is gone.

Bruce Ramsey's column appears regularly on editorial pages of The Times. His e-mail address is bramsey@seattletimes.com