Nowadays, we have more and more examples of economic and income inequality. This gap between rich and poor is enormous all over the world, and it is getting bigger. Some research proves that the gap is bigger and developing if the leader party is republican. However, democrats are well known as the famous fighter against economic inequality.Somehow, they manage to control this gap under control.
Some people would cite many reasons why presidential terms are an imperfect paradigm for tracking economic trends. Conventional wisdom suggests that the business cycle doesn’t follow the electoral cycle. A president’s economic record is heavily influenced by factors out of his control. Timing matters and so does good fortune.
Nowadays worldwide political picture
Bartels acknowledges that there can be many explanations for growing income inequality, from globalization and structural changes in the U.S. economy to technological and demographic shifts. But he argues that it is wrong to assume there is no cause-and-effect relationship between government policies and income distribution. In fact, he asserts, “economic inequality is, in substantial part, a political phenomenon.”Trump, the current president of United States, is one of the best examples for this case. He obviously affected the entire economic situation in his advantage and used the political power to enhance his position in the world.
Republican affect to society vs. Democratic influence
At least that was the conventional wisdom before Princeton professor Larry M. Bartels, one of the country’s leading political scientists, studied the relationship between economic outcomes and which party occupied the President’s office. His most significant finding is that there is a partisan pattern to the size of the gap between the rich and the poor. Over the past half-century, he concludes, Republican presidents have allowed income inequality to expand, while Democratic presidents have not.
Lest anyone think this book, Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age, is a partisan hit job by a left-wing academic, Bartels goes to great pains in his introduction to preempt the counterattack he expects from critics on the right. “I began the project as an unusually apolitical political scientist,” he writes, noting that the last time he voted was in 1984, “and that was for Ronald Reagan.” He adds that in doing this work, “I was quite surprised to discover how often and how profoundly partisan differences in ideologies and values have shaped key policy decisions and economic outcomes. I have done my best to follow my evidence where it led me.”