Like so many Americans today, I am not happy with either Republicans or Democrats. More than that, I am unhappy with political discourse, and the way complicated issues get oversimplified. I decided to simplify and clarify some of my thinking, so I can see if it forms a coherent whole.
1. Principles are guidelines, not rules set in stone. As soon as you "this is the way it is, no exceptions, no discussion" you lose your flexibility and ability to think critically.
2. We are all special snowflakes. Yes, I know. You've probably heard this with a note of irony and sarcasm. If everyone is special, then in the end nobody is special. We can't possibly all be special. We can't all have some field or area where we are amazing. Yet think about what it would mean if you were serious about this one. What if every. single. person. had this amazing potential to do something awesome?
Then how sad is it, that so few people get the ability to be amazing? If we all have that ability, how come only 10% (to randomly pick a number that viscerally feels right) get the chance to live up to their full potential? How much potential is absolutely wasted in the world as it exists today?
Tied in with this is a view of people - as individuals, and as members of society. We're supposed to be an individualistic culture, so we emphasize individuals choices. This person chose poorly, and now they're dealing with the consequences. That person chose well, and now they're successful. Yet other cultures emphasize the community, or the family. The group. This can be bad, in some ways. What you do reflects on your entire family (or clan, or tribe) and if you behave poorly your family will suffer. Collective punishment.
Yet there is an element of truth to this. Today we see the American Dream withering and dying. It is harder and harder for someone who doesn't come from a wealthy family to succeed. Yet there are always individuals who prove the exception to the rule, and who do manage to make it. Is it because of individual choice? That they chose well, whereas everyone else around them chose poorly? Or was there something else going on?
My personal view is that there is an element of truth to both of these. We have free will. We can make choices, for good or bad, that will affect our lives. And yet we are also part of a socio-economic environment that affects what choices are available to us. (This, btw, is part of why I'm involved with Big Brothers, Big Sisters. Mentorship matters. Mentorship makes a difference. And it is possible to make that difference, because we are not locked into the circumstances we were born into.)
3. Creating the right environment for success is complicated. People have to try, and fail. And try again. People have to be challenged, but not too much. Plus, people feel rewarded and fulfilled when they are serving something greater than themselves. (Yes, I phrased that as 'success', but success is tied in with happiness and fulfillment. Most people are not going to succeed where they aren't happy, and the ones who do are not exactly living the kind of life we want.) That's part of why this whole thing about 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' only talks about the pursuit of happiness. You can chase after it all you want, but often what you think will make you happy doesn't.
Too much success, too easily, can actually make it harder for people to be fulfilled. Too much of a struggle, and too many people become overwhelmed.
Note: Yes, I know. These last two are not really political viewpoints, per se. Yet they are some of the basic tests I use for any suggested policy. Does it create an environment where individuals can develop to their full potential? Take the liberal and conservative viewpoints on welfare. Some conservatives see welfare as handouts that make people dependent on the government, and stifles their willingness and ability to do for themselves. Some liberals focus on the vast majority of people who use welfare as intended. Many use welfare as a way to help get through a difficult time, especially while job hunting or looking for something more permanent. Liberals may also focus on the children, and say 'we have to give these children the resources they need to do better in life'...because children who are given a good education, good nutrition, and good mentorship have the chance to do better.
Which matters more? The potential for welfare abuse? Or the ability to help Americans get through a rough time? Is it a matter of degree? That X many of people who abuse the program are enough to justify ending it? Or is it about something else entirely? About whether government should provide support to citizens going through a rough time? (i.e. does society benefit by providing a safety net like welfare?)
1. Principles are guidelines, not rules set in stone. As soon as you "this is the way it is, no exceptions, no discussion" you lose your flexibility and ability to think critically.
2. We are all special snowflakes. Yes, I know. You've probably heard this with a note of irony and sarcasm. If everyone is special, then in the end nobody is special. We can't possibly all be special. We can't all have some field or area where we are amazing. Yet think about what it would mean if you were serious about this one. What if every. single. person. had this amazing potential to do something awesome?
Then how sad is it, that so few people get the ability to be amazing? If we all have that ability, how come only 10% (to randomly pick a number that viscerally feels right) get the chance to live up to their full potential? How much potential is absolutely wasted in the world as it exists today?
Tied in with this is a view of people - as individuals, and as members of society. We're supposed to be an individualistic culture, so we emphasize individuals choices. This person chose poorly, and now they're dealing with the consequences. That person chose well, and now they're successful. Yet other cultures emphasize the community, or the family. The group. This can be bad, in some ways. What you do reflects on your entire family (or clan, or tribe) and if you behave poorly your family will suffer. Collective punishment.
Yet there is an element of truth to this. Today we see the American Dream withering and dying. It is harder and harder for someone who doesn't come from a wealthy family to succeed. Yet there are always individuals who prove the exception to the rule, and who do manage to make it. Is it because of individual choice? That they chose well, whereas everyone else around them chose poorly? Or was there something else going on?
My personal view is that there is an element of truth to both of these. We have free will. We can make choices, for good or bad, that will affect our lives. And yet we are also part of a socio-economic environment that affects what choices are available to us. (This, btw, is part of why I'm involved with Big Brothers, Big Sisters. Mentorship matters. Mentorship makes a difference. And it is possible to make that difference, because we are not locked into the circumstances we were born into.)
3. Creating the right environment for success is complicated. People have to try, and fail. And try again. People have to be challenged, but not too much. Plus, people feel rewarded and fulfilled when they are serving something greater than themselves. (Yes, I phrased that as 'success', but success is tied in with happiness and fulfillment. Most people are not going to succeed where they aren't happy, and the ones who do are not exactly living the kind of life we want.) That's part of why this whole thing about 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' only talks about the pursuit of happiness. You can chase after it all you want, but often what you think will make you happy doesn't.
Too much success, too easily, can actually make it harder for people to be fulfilled. Too much of a struggle, and too many people become overwhelmed.
Note: Yes, I know. These last two are not really political viewpoints, per se. Yet they are some of the basic tests I use for any suggested policy. Does it create an environment where individuals can develop to their full potential? Take the liberal and conservative viewpoints on welfare. Some conservatives see welfare as handouts that make people dependent on the government, and stifles their willingness and ability to do for themselves. Some liberals focus on the vast majority of people who use welfare as intended. Many use welfare as a way to help get through a difficult time, especially while job hunting or looking for something more permanent. Liberals may also focus on the children, and say 'we have to give these children the resources they need to do better in life'...because children who are given a good education, good nutrition, and good mentorship have the chance to do better.
Which matters more? The potential for welfare abuse? Or the ability to help Americans get through a rough time? Is it a matter of degree? That X many of people who abuse the program are enough to justify ending it? Or is it about something else entirely? About whether government should provide support to citizens going through a rough time? (i.e. does society benefit by providing a safety net like welfare?)
No comments:
Post a Comment