The problem with this perception, though, is that overall, it is simply not true. When looking at certain snapshots and certain bills voted on in Congress, one is certainly apt to believe the late Gov. Wallace. But just by looking at the sharp ideological contrasts between the parties – the difference in policy preferences between the parties today is as great as has ever been – makes one instantly reconsider that observation. At almost every turn, the party differences run to their very cores.

            Indeed, in this day and age, it is almost impossible to keep up with all the myriads of differences between the donkey and the elephant, forget biological/taxonomical features of the mascot animals themselves. The adversarial comparisons are almost enough to fill up a book; for instance, one classic comparison is that of the party – supposedly – of business interests vs. the party of – supposedly – farmers and laborers. That comparison alone keeps the knuckle-dragging union Neanderthals supporting crooked labor organizations that in turn fill the coffers of the Dems.

            But the comparisons certainly don’t stop there. One comparison I particularly enjoy is the party of the easily-offended (the Democrats, obviously) vs. the party of the not-so-easily offended. Implicit in this contrast are ideological differences themselves, where feigned offense on the party of the Democrat faithful becomes a clandestine approach towards stifling speech with which they happen to disagree and have no substantive arguments to counter the very substance of the assertion with they seem to be offended. This Party of the Easily Offended, after all – or at least party members – are the ones responsible for political correctness, defined simply as roadblocks to the truth set up by those who cannot deal with the truth.

            If economics is your interest, the comparisons there are quite stark, too, with multiple option as well: the Keynesians vs. the Supply-Siders, the party of tax-and-spend vs. the party of it’s-your-money, the party of the Soviet-style central planners vs. the party of the free marketers. All of these comparisons denote deep ideological differences between the respective adherents, between those who are convinced that the government knows best how to distribute money and those who think that free individuals know what to do best with their own money. The latter group, of course, is in good company, as those are the same basic principles outlined by Adam Smith in his historically influential magnum opus The Wealth of Nations, first published in 1776, the same year we declared our independence from the British crown (coincidence? I’m apt to think not!). Oh, and did I mention that the Dems are the party of equality-first – especially when it comes to personal income! – whereas the Republicans are the party of liberty-first? Again, this boils down to fundamental differences between the ideological left and right, respectively.

            Even in presidential elections of recent years, the differences between not only where a president should stand for on the issues are quite noticeable (is anyone out there crazy enough to think that there wasn’t sufficient difference between George W. Bush and John Kerry? How about between Reagan and Carter?), but there seems to be a fundamental difference in how both parties approach the very role of President of the United States.

            To that end, another timely contrast between the two parties has emerged, the Party of Senators (Democrats) vs. the Party of Governors (Republicans). Even casual observers could note that senators and governors go about their jobs differently. True, both need votes to get re-elected, but how they go about getting those votes alone seems to be fundamentally different oftentimes. Senators are like babies with hammers, because when infants get such a tool in their hands, everything becomes a nail to be hit. They – particularly liberal Democrat Senators – need to act like everything is going to Hades in a handbasket, and only they can reverse such a drastic decline by enacting radical, broad-sweeping pieces of legislation to give the government more license to step in and supposedly right all wrongs. Governors, meanwhile, are, at their core role, administrators – business managers, essentially. Good business managers don’t think they have to “do it all:” rather, they find specialists capable of handling different roles requiring different skill sets, and they delegate the responsibility accordingly. Presidents essentially fill the same roles on a national as opposed to the state level. To be sure, many governors from both parties – some presidents, too – might panic during an election year and succumb to the temptation or trying to act like the people’s savior in order to buy off votes with taxpayer dollars, but by doing so, those governors/presidents betray their fundamental roles as administrators (trying to act like lawmakers instead of business managers).

            That striking difference holds up even in this unusual election of 2008. Although the nominees of both parties are current U.S. Senators, this is the first time a senator will win the presidency since 1960 when JFK upset then-VP Richard Nixon. Other than the anomalies of 1960 and this year, over the past 30+ years, presidents have come up through the VP ranks, or those of governors. What is particularly telling is that that only Democrats to win the presidency during that same span of time – Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton – were also governors from right-leaning states. Ah, the irony!

            But what of this 2008 anomaly, where no matter who wins, we’ll have a senator become president? In this case, one must look at the vice presidential picks. Barack Obama chose…another senator, Slow Joe Biden, who acts like he has “foreign policy experience,” but in reality is one of the relatively few senators left who has been around long enough to get it all wrong on the Cold War as well as the War on Terror. Meanwhile, McCain chose a governor – Sarah Palin of Alaska – for his Veep nominee, thus once again proving that the contrast in question remains valid.

            Be it the approach towards economic policy, foreign affairs, or the very nature of the office of the president, the differences between the two major parties could not be more pronounced. Rather than wallow around in cynicism, it is important we keep these differences in mind as we file into the polls come early November.