politics
Cross posted from facebook- but it seemed a good post for my first lj one in a long time.
I've been thinking about politics and the difference between political viewpoints lately. Some of this comes from thinking about the way in which we taught the political spectrum in school. I was always having to explain to students that the definitions we were using were academic ones, not the labels that the media and U.S. political parties used. The rest of it has simply been mulling around in my brain for a while as I try to understand why we get so out of sorts with one another over politics.
It seems- and I know before writing this that I am making an oversimplification here- and that this may not be new to any of you- that much of the difference comes down to the social contract. (When people live together in groups, they must give up some of their freedoms to the collective- usually represented by the government- and in return they are given some protections.) I am deliberately staying away from referring to political parties in this, as I believe that there are variations of belief in both parties.
In general, it seems that those called 'liberals' favor a more extensive contract and those called 'conservatives' favor a more limited one. This seems to apply over most issues that are considered contentious. The environment: 'liberals' favor more governmental involvement in environmental issues while 'conservatives' favor less. Much of these differences in the view of the social contract seem to be represented by taxes- 'liberals' are more willing to be taxed and have that tax money be spent on public issues while 'conservatives' favor less taxation, etc.
However, when you reach the social realm, the roles reverse. 'Social conservatives' favor a much more extensive social contract in that arena while 'social liberals' favor a much more limited one. 'Social conservatives' are interested in the government promoting certain lifestyles and actively discouraging others while 'social liberals' believe that the government should not take a stand on/ be involved in someone's personal life.
"Freedom to" vs. "freedom from" is another way to look at those ideas separating the 2 groups. 'Conservatives' (except for 'social conservatives') favor having more "freedom to" do things, such as the freedom to bear arms. 'Liberals' (except for 'social liberals') favor more "freedom from" things- such as the freedom from poverty or discrimination. 'Social conservatives' and 'social liberals' switch to the other position as they did above. This is, again, an oversimplification, but makes sense to me.
Now, in a perfect world, people/ political parties realizing these things might make them more willing to listen to each other, compromise and work together- realizing that they are simply at slightly different points on a continuum of political process, but I don't hold out a lot of hope for that.
I've been thinking about politics and the difference between political viewpoints lately. Some of this comes from thinking about the way in which we taught the political spectrum in school. I was always having to explain to students that the definitions we were using were academic ones, not the labels that the media and U.S. political parties used. The rest of it has simply been mulling around in my brain for a while as I try to understand why we get so out of sorts with one another over politics.
It seems- and I know before writing this that I am making an oversimplification here- and that this may not be new to any of you- that much of the difference comes down to the social contract. (When people live together in groups, they must give up some of their freedoms to the collective- usually represented by the government- and in return they are given some protections.) I am deliberately staying away from referring to political parties in this, as I believe that there are variations of belief in both parties.
In general, it seems that those called 'liberals' favor a more extensive contract and those called 'conservatives' favor a more limited one. This seems to apply over most issues that are considered contentious. The environment: 'liberals' favor more governmental involvement in environmental issues while 'conservatives' favor less. Much of these differences in the view of the social contract seem to be represented by taxes- 'liberals' are more willing to be taxed and have that tax money be spent on public issues while 'conservatives' favor less taxation, etc.
However, when you reach the social realm, the roles reverse. 'Social conservatives' favor a much more extensive social contract in that arena while 'social liberals' favor a much more limited one. 'Social conservatives' are interested in the government promoting certain lifestyles and actively discouraging others while 'social liberals' believe that the government should not take a stand on/ be involved in someone's personal life.
"Freedom to" vs. "freedom from" is another way to look at those ideas separating the 2 groups. 'Conservatives' (except for 'social conservatives') favor having more "freedom to" do things, such as the freedom to bear arms. 'Liberals' (except for 'social liberals') favor more "freedom from" things- such as the freedom from poverty or discrimination. 'Social conservatives' and 'social liberals' switch to the other position as they did above. This is, again, an oversimplification, but makes sense to me.
Now, in a perfect world, people/ political parties realizing these things might make them more willing to listen to each other, compromise and work together- realizing that they are simply at slightly different points on a continuum of political process, but I don't hold out a lot of hope for that.