RNC vs DNC: Security vs Principles

Will America compromise its principles for its security? This question has been brought up repeatedly throughout history and America has chosen the latter many times, a decision that has been gravely criticized. With the Republican National Convention and the Democratic National Convention, unfortunately this dilemma has managed to resurface and the question has once again set the stage up for debate.

The fundamental theme at the Republican National Convention was security. Republicans based most of their ideology on this grave and urgent need for America to secure itself at whatever the cost. The proposed ban on Muslims, stricter immigration policies and tighter border controls were the controversial ideas built on this security foundation and rhetoric.

In a world where survival is the principle goal of a state, security is essential. This realist perspective is certainly crucial in a century, in which for the very first time, a common global enemy has emerged: terrorism. Terrorism has no state, no face. Thus, fighting it is proving to be different and more difficult. Therefore, the cost of fighting is also high and will require compromises.

While Republicans have received criticisms and are accused of being racist and unethical in their approach, they refuse to be politically correct and claim that they are stating the facts and truth. They are willing to compromise on principles for the security of the state.

Democrats, on the other hand, based their rhetoric on upholding the American principles of liberty and equality to the same importance as security. The Democrats have refused to take the route of the Japanese internment camps or the Chinese Exclusion Act. Claiming that America is great because of its principles of equality, they have certainly adopted policies of inclusion.

It would be unfair to say that Democrats don’t care about security at all. They believe that inclusion and unification build a more secure state than ostracization of groups does. Republicans argue that Democrats fall into the trap of political correctness and with their inclusive policies take a softer approach to the challenging, urgent and demanding security concerns the United States faces.

Is it necessary for states to once in awhile compromise on their principles for the sake of national security? Is it unreasonable to think that without compromising states can still remain secure in a challenging and difficult world? If states are not able to survive or remain powerful, what good would their moral compass be? Once again, America stands at a familiar crossroads.Thus, these conventions aren’t just a virtual reality playing out onscreen, but rather the assembling of a crucial choice for the electorate: security or principles.

Featured Image via Flickr/Jayel Aheram