What is the divide and is it real?
Yes, it is real. There are many aspects that populate the
question and lead to confusion on what exactly we are speaking of. For
starters, let’s give the subject some substance:
a.
Part of the problem is our closeness of
positions on many issues. I think Americans truly see themselves as
humanitarians. However, when specific situations are posed, many people are
poles apart in their caring for individuals involved. How much of this is a
true split, and how much is only nuanced separatism is open to debate
b.
Racist tweets from celebrities demonstrate this
point; most Americans are opposed to racism in any form; but there are those
folks who simply feel superior to others for whatever reason; they feel better
about themselves by raising their self-image and lowering others
c.
Racism may not be contained to different
ethnicities or skin color. Differences of nationality, religion, or region of
residence (north versus south in the US). Although not technically racist,
these differences are felt by those so targeted
d.
Separation of parents from their children is
felt by all of us; but some fellow citizens feel this horror should be used as
a punishment or deterrent to illegal immigration. Interesting divide. Why is
this allowed by some as OK when the vast majority detests the policy or threat
of it?
e.
We bemoan debilitating illnesses in self, our
family members or others close to us. When the patient is distant from us we
may take a colder approach. Especially when public dollars are involved in
addressing trauma, major illness or disability. Many people resent public
dollars being spent on such cases unless it is for themselves or someone near
and dear! Should there even be a difference of opinion on this?
f.
Economic policy should protect consumers from
major fraud, scams and system failure. Government should manage stability of
the economic system for maximum benefit of the common good. That would be the
progressive or ‘liberal’ position. Conservative orthodoxy would dictate
hands-off by the government. Conservatives would most likely support government
interference only in case of major economic disruption or failure
g.
The justice system is a universal role of
government. Yet the system is stacked against defendants if government staff can
throw the full weight of government against the defendant while the accused has
very little money to raise a viable defense. Shouldn’t the accused be afforded
the best defense possible at public expense? Liberals would say yes,
conservatives would say no
h.
It is argued that society gains the most when
each person has open access to the fullest education possible to fulfill their
interests and abilities. Liberals would support this position; conservatives
contend this is a personal matter best paid for by the individual or family
involved. In the end education is viewed as a competitive edge that allows some
people to earn more money than others. If that is true, then the individual is
viewed as the beneficiary of the education and must pay for it himself
We could cite more examples. These will do for now. The point
is two camps of political and social thought exist. The first camp is society
can do much to alleviate suffering and expand the quality of life for the
common good. The second camp believes society is strengthened if individuals exercise
their own gumption and thrive on their own competitive instincts and learned skills.
This same camp claims government taxation reduces the individual’s ability to
pay his own way in competing successfully.
The divide I just painted here may be too simplistic, but in
the main I think most of the points are set straight. How would you improve or
articulate this?
It is too simple to state liberals are for big government
and conservatives are for least government. The intersection of people living
in an open society is much too complex for such simplicity. So, what is our next
step?
June 1, 2018
No comments:
Post a Comment