A spun divide

A few weeks ago, a writer in The New Republic characterized the ideological divide between conservatives and liberals today by pointing out that liberals could be convinced with facts and logic that privatizing Social Security is the right thing to do; but no amount of facts and logic could overcome the conservative belief that market forces solve all problems.

That's a bit of a dogmatic argument in and of itself, and I'm sure that plenty of conservatives might counter that liberals have a similar faith in government as the solution to everything.

It's pretty common to paint political opposition in the most garish colors available, clumping them together with the most extreme among them. And yet we all know that John McCain is not Ann Coulter, and neither is John Edwards Michael Moore. Most politicians, let's face it, are pragmatic problem-solvers that rely on ideology and idealism for direction but not absolute truth.

On most of the online tests, I come out as a liberal-leaning libertarian. I believe the individual is more important than the collective, but that we are obliged to maintain a civilized society. I believe that taxes are a necessary evil, not a social tool. I think market forces are efficient but not always humane. It bothers me that some people are poor, but not at all that some are rich.

I think these are entirely reasonable positions, and believe that virtuous politics is all about honestly confronting problems that challenge our values. “Honest people can disagree on this issue” is one of my favorite sayings.

I don't know if conservatives are more dogmatic than liberals, but it does appear that conservatives are more likely to harbor a personal dislike of their opponents than vice versa. I'd also venture to speculate that a liberal could more convincingly impersonate a conservative than vice versa.

What bothers me, I suppose, is that too much of the political debate is about obscuring rather than clarifying the issues. I think that a poll among most Americans would show that Bush's “privatization” plans are perceived as an effort to save the program's solvency, whether or not they believe it will work. There are countless examples of issues that have evolved beyond all recognition as they've been spun and respun. It's a sad state of affairs. Sent wirelessly from my Blackberry.

Comments

[Franko]

I think you might be on to something when you say that Conservatives are more likely to have a personal hatred for their opponents on the left. On the international scene Conservatives view Chavez and Castro as the root cause of strained relations not the Venezuelan or Cuban people. Nationally it is Michael Moore, Ted Kennedy and other cartoonish personalities that are reviled more so than people from, say, the North East or West coast.

Conversely, I would further speculate that leftists tend to have a more generalized dislike for the populations that disagree with their politics while not necessarily the individuals. Leftists see broad groups like Christians, Southerners and/or Bourgeoisies as their political opponents and don't invest as much venom on individuals.

I would argue it is the tendency to see whole populations as political foes that has led to the worst horrors of Leftists totalitarianism; the Cultural Revolution, Cambodia's killing fields and Stalin’s purges. But then again slaughter is all over the face of human history; it happened before there were such things as leftists and tragically will probably continue long after no one knows what that is anymore.