Throughout history, a foundational divide in American politics has split the federal government. In the early days of the republic, quarreling between the Federalists (represented by John Adams) and Democratic-Republicans (led by Thomas Jefferson) over the size of government resulted in one of the nastiest presidential races in American history. Today, the two major parties still fail to see eye-to-eye on the issue of federal involvement.
The official GOP preamble, taken from their own website, states the following: “The federal government has expanded its size and scope, its borrowing and spending, its debt and deficit.” As a result, the text continues, “federalism is threatened and liberty retreats.” In contrast to the Republican aversion to large-scale federal government, common knowledge is that the Democrats consider themselves to be in favor of so-called “big government,” though there’s no official distinction on their website. This discrepancy is normally considered as the decisive ideology of each party. But when the Democrats and GOP are examined under the magnifying glass, this distinction does not truly define either party anymore.
No political realm demonstrates the inaccuracy of this binary better than social policy. Republicans traditionally favor the expansion of government to regulate social behaviors. Throughout the 1990s, thirty-one states added same-sex marriage bans to their state constitutions; of these, Republican politicians spearheaded almost every single effort. Unsatisfied, they clamored for a federal ban on same-sex marriage, a proposal President Bush officially went on the record as supporting. Similarly, Republicans have long supported federal restrictions on abortion. In contrast, Democrats — largely in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage and abortion — advocated preventing and removing any nationwide laws placing limits on either. Given that the basic rule for social issues that implementing a ban on something constitutes government involvement, whereas removing one is effectively non-intervention, clearly the foundational political beliefs of both parties are no longer firmly tethered to their original concepts of big government versus small government. Some candidates still campaign behind this narrative, but their stances on social issues seem to contradict their stated ideals.
But social policies aren’t the only place where Republicans and Democrats go against the big-little government dichotomy. When it comes to expanding the national military and deciding to intervene in foreign conflicts, establishment Republicans usually support both enthusiastically while the left expresses more reluctance about getting involved beyond humanitarian aid. The conventional Democrat typically advocates for decreased military spending whereas most Republicans want more federal financing for the armed forces. Moreover, most GOP Presidential candidates are, on the whole, much more willing to entertain the idea of sending ground troops to fight ISIL than those running on the Democratic side.
American political ideology has shifted from being rooted in philosophy to basing itself on practicality. Conservatives can no longer be entirely defined by a dedication to states rights and weak federal government; likewise, modern liberals often support a hands-off approach from Washington. Instead of remaining steadfastly dedicated to one side of the debate or the other, members of both parties pick and choose when to be pro-government and when to oppose federal interference. This in itself isn’t a major problem, but when your official party preamble states you believe in one view or the other, it seems odd and even misleading not to maintain consistency on the issue.
None of this is to say the big government/small government split has completely reversed. On the majority of issues, including almost every economic one, these characterizations are intact. There are plenty of hot-button topics — among them gun control, the death penalty, and health care – where most Democrats fight for national regulations and a majority of Republicans stand by states’ rights. Rather, it shows that when parties decided where they fall in regards to certain issues, federal government involvement is nowhere near the main consideration — and is often disregarded completely.
So what does this transformation change? Beyond the fact that politicians often do an about-face and turn their backs on traditional philosophies they swear by, this flip-flopping could cause a shift in power within America’s party structure. A number of voters have noticed the incongruity between the stated philosophies and political actions of the major parties and have already started to peel off into their own factions. The Libertarian Party, which defines itself as a group meant to “challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual,” consistently maintains the stance that the federal government should have as little power as possible. Their support is increasing, seeing an increase in votes in Presidential elections every year since 2000 (including an all-time high in 2012). Last year, a Reuters poll discovered that nearly one in five Americans identify as libertarian. That being said, the same poll found that many self-identifying libertarians also consider themselves Democrats or Republicans. Nevertheless, the increasing number of votes for Libertarians in presidential elections proves an increasing amount of people are abandoning the traditional party structure.
Though more a subset of the Republican Party than an independent faction, the Tea Party also garners strength by advocating small government: one of their “non-negotiable core beliefs” as listed online is the belief that “government must be downsized.” While overall support for the Tea Party has actually decreased recently, they’ve experienced a swift and influential rise in American politics over the last few years. The Freedom Caucus, closely tied to the Tea Party, now claims thirty-six Congressional seats. While it is unlikely that enough people will change allegiances to put a Libertarian or non-GOP, Tea Party candidate in the White House, the votes they do receive could end up splitting conservatives throughout the nation.
A shift away from the philosophical fundamentals of both parties has proliferated to the point where political parties only partially fight for the values that once defined them. Inconsistency has become a major component and criticism of party politics, frustrating those who still prescribe to the basic big government or small government views that helped found the country. The days of big government vs. small government thinking — at least in an absolute sense — are effectively over, as both parties have become more inconsistent in this regard than ever. Until Democrats and Republicans either go back to their old foundations or, more likely, redefine what unites them as a political faction, the stated intentions of each will continue to commonly contradict their actual political actions.