Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

My Point of View by Brad Kramer

As the election approaches, one fundamental difference between the Republican and Democratic platforms stands out: personal accountability.

Republican vision: Individual and family first

The Republican Party’s platform centers on the belief that individual freedoms and liberties are granted by our Creator, as outlined in the Bill of Rights. We emphasize equality before the law rather than equality of outcomes. While we acknowledge the importance of community — including family, neighbors and businesses — conservatives view the autonomy of the individual and the family unit as the bedrock of society. The American ideal of the self-reliant individual, pulling themselves up by their bootstraps, remains central to our values. Republicans want decisions made at the most local level possible. These ideals have formed a Capitalist society that has led to more success than any other society in history.

Democrat vision: Government as provider

In contrast, the Democratic platform prioritizes social justice and equality of outcome. This approach focuses on social equity rather than individual rights. For Democrats, the government’s role extends beyond providing essential services; ensuring a level playing field through education, welfare, health care and other support systems. Remember that for the government to force equality of outcome, it must decide a winner and loser. If you have worked hard for an opportunity, the government is at liberty to push you to the back of the line or provide incentives for someone less qualified to be hired instead.

Implications of the different worldviews

This foundational difference profoundly shapes our views on various issues, including taxation, social programs and military policy. Here’s why it matters:

Conservative perspective: Conservatives believe the state’s primary role is to provide basic protection — such as military, first responders and infrastructure. We argue that government should not manage income, dictate education or control our daily lives. Instead, personal and family responsibility should guide our choices and actions. Unless there is abuse or neglect, the state shouldn’t interfere with the parents’ role to raise their children.

Liberal perspective: Liberals see government as a tool to create equity by providing a range of services and support. They advocate for government intervention to ensure access to education, health care and welfare. An example of how government uses this power is using the military to promote DEI agendas rather than building it up as a fighting force.

The cost of government services: Providing these services requires significant funding through taxation. Taxation is essentially taking money earned by individuals, with enforcement backed by the threat of legal consequences. When government expands its role, it often leads to a bloated bureaucracy with unchecked power. This dynamic has been a persistent issue in our society.

Access to services like medical and education need to have guard rails and limitations, or it will bankrupt society. For example, is free medical care a right? What if it’s elective? If medical care is a right, but there are not enough providers to provide care at market rates, can government compel providers to treat whom the government prioritizes or to forgo market rates? Those are very important questions because if someone is planning to go to medical school and invest six-figures and a decade into their education, they want to make an income that reflects their investment and skill level. If an industry is not able to charge market rates that reflect the investment professionals in that industry put into their development, that industry will begin seeing a drop. We have already seen it. The more the government is involved in insurance and pricing, the harder it is to find specialists like mental health practitioners and dentists.

The Marxist influence: Many of the challenges we face today can be traced back to Marxist ideas that have influenced modern liberal policies. Karl Marx, despite his revolutionary theories, lived in poverty and relied on the wealth of others, like his collaborator Friedrich Engels. No government has successfully implemented Marxism long-term. Scandinavian countries, for instance, are scaling back their social programs due to economic strain. Communist regimes like Cuba, China and Venezuela have failed spectacularly, resulting in human rights abuses.

Recent trends show that even businesses are ditching DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) departments, which have often led to increased division and unqualified promotions. The pursuit of equality of outcome can undermine individual drive and creativity and throw a company’s reputation into a tailspin as poorly qualified hires cause accidents. Like airplanes falling out of the sky because of an underqualified manufacturing workforce or pilots who were diversity, rather than merit-based hires.

Conclusion

The core difference between the DFL and GOP lies in our views on personal responsibility versus government intervention. While Democrats advocate for a government-centric approach to social equity, Republicans believe in empowering individuals and families to thrive with minimal state interference and more liberty. This fundamental divergence affects every aspect of policy and governance.

Brad Kramer is a member of the Freeborn County GOP Party.