home
about
archives
|
CONSERVATIVES AND LIBERALS ARE NOT THE PROBLEM
09/22/2009
My husband has a mild form of color blindness. While we both agree on what constitutes red and what looks blue, we have often disagreed on what is brown vs. green or beige vs. gray. We could spend a lot of our time arguing about this, but we don't. While I could, in an effort to score points for my view of things, remind him of the color blind tests he has failed, this would be counterproductive. It wouldn't help either of us find a place of agreement on what might be the "correct" name to call a color and it would poison an otherwise congenial atmosphere in our home. So we simply ignore it, or sometimes laugh about it.
No matter what color blind tests say, he sees things one way and I see them another. This is because of how our eyes work. Who's to say I am "right" and he is "wrong?" Green and brown are just names we give to the way bands of light are perceived by our eyes. They say nothing else about who we are as people, whether we are right or wrong, or whether one of us has better vision than the other.
The same is true in politics. None of us have the absolute truth, we simply have our perceptions. And where do our perceptions come from? They come from our life experiences, our beliefs, our culture, our parents, our exposure or lack of exposure to others, our temperaments, our preferences, and increasingly, to propagandists who insist we choose one side or another, often imposing their own form of political "color blindness" on their listeners.
Sunday in one of his many interviews Barack Obama reminded us that there has always been a tug of war in this country between our desire for freedom and our responsibility (or need) to take care of each other. We could also say this is a conflict between an emphasis on the individual good and an emphasis on the common good. Do we, in other words, demand the maximum amount of freedom from laws, taxes, and regulation of our lives, even if that means a large number of citizens are left behind and suffer as a result, even if it means wealth becomes more and more concentrated in a few hands, because even that is preferable to government "intrusion" into our lives? Or do we demand that government ("we the people") act in some way to ensure the greatest good to the greatest number?
If you believe talk radio and cable news, you would think that the political parties are hopelessly divided on these issues, with the right believing in absolute freedom and the left believing in government imposed socialism. Both of these beliefs would be wrong.
For instance, some segments of the right do not believe in absolute freedom. For them, as for their opponents, it depends on the issue. For instance, some want to outlaw abortion and gay marriage. They want to demand proof of citizenship from all Americans before they can access health insurance and even health care. They want to continue to outlaw all drug use (except for prescription drugs, some of which are the exact chemical constitution as their illegal counterparts, and of course they want alcohol to remain legal.) Some believe in spying on citizens, indefinite incarceration and even torture in some circumstances. They are also not totally opposed to all government programs. It isn't just liberals who like unemployment benefits, disability payments, Medicare and Social Security.
As for the left, they love freedom too, and all but the most radical do not want to end free markets or the ability to pursue the "American Dream." What they are most concerned about is excess, as in times when excess freedoms – the freedom to own assault rifles for instance, or carry concealed weapons – might not be such a great idea. Or when corporations become so big that small companies can no longer compete, and consumers are held hostage by the prices virtual monopolies can charge absent vigorous competition. Or when wealth becomes so lop-sided, so amassed in the hands of a few, that millions of Americans are left without a living wage, or health care, or any hope to emerge from an underclass. In these cases, liberals see that giving absolute freedom to banks and large corporations actually deprives the less fortunate of the freedom to pursue their dreams. At the same time, it is the left that has been opposed to increased wiretapping and other enhanced surveillance that were instituted as a result of fear and are all reductions of both freedom and privacy.
President Obama is right. There has always been a tug of war and there is a need to find balance. We all want freedom. We all want reasonable laws. And we all want (or at least I think we do) policies that will ensure that everyone has equal opportunities, no one is left behind, and no small segment of society is allowed to call all the shots because they control all the wealth. In other words, I think most of us, right and left, want some measure of fairness and equality.
Conservatives emphasize one side of the tug of war and liberals emphasize the other. The debate between the two is what, in the past, has enabled us to move forward and solve problems, without moving too fast.
But the waters of political discourse and governance have gotten muddied in the past four or five decades by the growth of powerful interests and the use of ugly tactics for two purposes only: the acquisition of money and the acquisition of power.
One of the changes over the past half century involves the increasing influence of lobbyists. Money floats around Washington from lobbyists who work for well-funded groups, from labor unions to large corporations. Of course, everyone deserves to be heard by lawmakers, but those with the most cash have the loudest voice and often stifle good legislation or needed reform because they pay to have it stifled. The legislators to whom they "donate" fear losing the next election without their cash. They do this, of course, in order to make even more money. Campaign contributions and lobbyists' salaries are peanuts compared to what they gain by stopping any regulatory legislation. Worse, though, this distorts our democracy by making it possible, or even likely, that a few giant corporations or industries with money can stop legislation that the majority of real people want.
Let's use the example of global warming or climate change. A recent study of over 3000 scientists in the United States found that 90% believe global temperatures have risen in the past 200 years while 82% agree that human activity is a significant factor in that rise. 97% of climatologists, scientists who study climate science, agree that humans play a role in global increases in temperatures. Furthermore, a majority of Americans respond positively to the idea of a greener economy, more fuel efficiency, and less carbon emissions. Yet it has been the lobbyists for the oil and automobile industries that have managed to stop legislation to reduce carbon emissions, increase fuel economy, and insist on new types of engines that use alternate fuels.
A second change has been the growth of politically based, or should I say "biased," media. For decades the right has insisted that liberals control the media, though many of us who consider ourselves liberal don't see it that way at all – again, perspective. But the growth of talk radio (which is predominantly conservative) and the ascendancy of FOX News have taken media bias to a new level. FOX may use the slogan "fair and balanced" but they know this is tongue in cheek. FOX promotes the conservative point of view and is proud of it, while the evening shows on MSNBC have a decided liberal bias. And because the opinion based media are working to promote one viewpoint, much of the content is editorial and opinion, rather than actual reporting of facts and provable data. Thus we see FOX and MSNBC promote completely different views of the health care debate, while neither really educates their viewers as to the actual facts and statistics that the public should understand. If the media no longer educate, but only promote their particular perspective, we learn very little.
Returning to our example of climate change, politically biased media – in this case on the right - debunks the opposing side, even when scientific evidence completely refutes their view, by bringing on the 3% of climatologists who disagree and, in the case of people like Rush Limbaugh, by making fun of the other 97% or indeed the majority of the American people who want more green technology and are concerned about protecting the planet.
A third change has been in the tone of political discourse, which has been fueled by the first two but also by political think tanks and even religious leaders. Political think tanks publish books and provide "experts" for television news programs, even if those experts only have expertise in political propaganda. They publish books by the likes of Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck which offer no helpful "facts" but only attacks against the other side. Authors on the left also publish books for a specific audience, those who agree with them and disagree with conservatives, and some are quite hostile. Most people do not read books by polemicists who represent a view they oppose and thus no one learns anything new from reading them, though they may learn a few talking points. It is this hostile environment that gave permission to Congressman Joe Wilson to call the president a liar during his joint address to Congress. And why do they do poison the political conversation like this? To promote important legislation that might help the people? No, to promote themselves and gain power for their party. Finally, religious leaders – mostly from the conservative side - weigh in with "biblical truth" that often bears no relevance to the particular issue at hand, but adds a further element of divisive and non-productive self-righteousness to our political conversation.
Back to the climate change issue, right wing think tanks put out position papers and provide speakers to debunk the overwhelming consensus among scientists. Because the scientific consensus is against them, those who oppose policies to curb carbon emissions and change our oil-based economy, must use personal attacks on politicians and scientists to discredit them and their viewpoint. And fundamentalist preachers pile on with their insistence that the earth is only 6000 years old, according to their interpretation of the Bible, and therefore scientists don't know what they are talking about. Or they say the earth will end when God wants it to, not when man destroys it with carbon emissions. Or they preach that Armageddon will come long before the earth gets too warm.
I have had conversations with reasonable conservatives and reasonable liberals, and most think we need to address the issue of climate change, even if they come at it from different perspectives and have different proposed solutions. However, the three influences listed above make it almost impossible for any productive legislation to emerge from Congress.
Until we reduce the effect of these three influences on our political process, our discourse will lack civility, our political contests will be brutal, and the well being of the people, as well as the planet, will suffer.
All content © 2005 outragedcitizen.com
|
