Republicans and Democrats-one difference!
I hate to generalize....makes me mad to be pegged for something I'm not based on someone's superficial judgements. But I've been thinking about what I hear from D's and R's and one frequent difference comes from an economic lens through which they view the world. What do I mean?
By and large I hear Republicans speaking from a perspective rooted in "I've got mine" and anyone who doesn't have theirs probably doesn't deserve it. There's the inherent issue of "worthiness". I notice that when Republicans and Democrats talk about the needy, the D might say "we have to do something to help disadvantaged groups" while the R will point to specific cases from the disadvantaged group who have transcended the disadvantage. The underlying D perspective is that disadvantaged classes of people really need our help and the government should be one tool to achieve that. We are the government and it acts to carry out our common purposes. The underlying R perspective is that there are no 'classes' of people just groups of individuals and they need to not be mired in hopelessness because of their circumstances. The society's response in the R view is that other people- like church organizations or private groups of volunteers can help those who really need help. And ultimately, that people can help themselves with attitude and willpower. "I did it or I know someone who did it, so those who don't are making their own choice".
Part of my frustration is that I think many dialogues and arguments promote ignoring the basic disagreement on terms and focus on the 'wrongness' of the other position. I believe both sides are prone to serious oversimplification. But ultimately, I think evidence shows there are people who can't help themselves. The single mom with no education, the $10 an hour job on the swing shift and two children at home isn't "choosing" not to change her life. Nor are her children. A Republican world doesn't pay much attention to these folks. Or thousands of similarly grim scenarios. The Democratic perspective infuriates an R because the D doesn't focus on the frequent instances in which the single mom with two children and no prospects is milking the system and covering the cigarette and beer costs of her no good live-in boyfriend. Which is right? I don't think either perspective is right. But I think the damage of the Republican approach- as for example to the children involved- demands an alternative.
But we've gotta think hard to choose the right one.
By and large I hear Republicans speaking from a perspective rooted in "I've got mine" and anyone who doesn't have theirs probably doesn't deserve it. There's the inherent issue of "worthiness". I notice that when Republicans and Democrats talk about the needy, the D might say "we have to do something to help disadvantaged groups" while the R will point to specific cases from the disadvantaged group who have transcended the disadvantage. The underlying D perspective is that disadvantaged classes of people really need our help and the government should be one tool to achieve that. We are the government and it acts to carry out our common purposes. The underlying R perspective is that there are no 'classes' of people just groups of individuals and they need to not be mired in hopelessness because of their circumstances. The society's response in the R view is that other people- like church organizations or private groups of volunteers can help those who really need help. And ultimately, that people can help themselves with attitude and willpower. "I did it or I know someone who did it, so those who don't are making their own choice".
Part of my frustration is that I think many dialogues and arguments promote ignoring the basic disagreement on terms and focus on the 'wrongness' of the other position. I believe both sides are prone to serious oversimplification. But ultimately, I think evidence shows there are people who can't help themselves. The single mom with no education, the $10 an hour job on the swing shift and two children at home isn't "choosing" not to change her life. Nor are her children. A Republican world doesn't pay much attention to these folks. Or thousands of similarly grim scenarios. The Democratic perspective infuriates an R because the D doesn't focus on the frequent instances in which the single mom with two children and no prospects is milking the system and covering the cigarette and beer costs of her no good live-in boyfriend. Which is right? I don't think either perspective is right. But I think the damage of the Republican approach- as for example to the children involved- demands an alternative.
But we've gotta think hard to choose the right one.
Comments