There is no easier way for me to get good and depressed then to go peruse the "New Non-Fiction" section of a popular bookstore. Perhaps some of you have done this recently. Invariably, there will be two major themes running through the shelves, characterized by books with subtitles like "How to Save Our Glorious American Heritage from the Weeny-Ass, Anti-Family, Terrorist-Loving, so-called-'intellectual' Left" or "What You can do to Stop the Color-Hating, Baby-Killing, Tree-Cutting Onslaught of the Knuckle-dragging Right (aka 'The Bitches of Big Business')." You know what I'm talking about. I find it really disturbing.
Some people see this as the "healthy exchange of ideas" brought about by a national belief in free speech. I will grant that it is one of the messy results of free speech. But this is not the healthy exchange of ideas. In fact, I think you would be pressed to find any exchange other than that of ideologically charged rhetoric. Essentially, it is a shouting match with more and more authors joining the fray.
It's made me think a lot about the two poles of political discourse in our country and elsewhere. ["Pole" being a relative concept. The founder of the Aryan Nation, America's homegrown version of neo-Nazism, died recently. He was in no way an example of conservatism. In the same way (although they are rarer and rarer, and for a good reason) the odd self-proclaimed communist is no longer a representative of the left. I'm not interested in talking about the "true" extremes at this point.] I think there is a weird paradox at work in both conservatism and liberalism that we need to recognize in order to understand the mudslinging.
The paradox is this: I think that, in their most representative avatars, conservatism and liberalism have a tremendous amount in common; specifically, they share the same goals. At the same time, the two views also contain irreconcilable differences, in that they do not share the same values/beliefs.
Let me offer an example of this. Both conservatives and liberals would agree that good healthcare is a worthwhile goal. I think you could get Rush Limbaugh, even at his most belligerent, to say that society AND individuals all benefit from a good healthcare. In this situation, the two views are in agreement -- they go off and have a beer in perfect harmony.
However (and I am using GROSS generalizations here for the sake of argument), their values create major problems. For the conservative would claim that the market is the best, most equitable way to distribute health care. It is the most efficient (a central conservative value, "efficiency"), since it can adjust and meet the needs of the consumer with the speed of the market. Moreover, it is fueled by profit, which is one of the best motivators for naturally selfish people. Health care providers will thus give top-notch care because they have a vested interest in making their patients healthy.
Not so, says the liberal. While the profit motive may be effective, leaving health care to the market is opening the door for exploitation. Health care will then be directly related to what a person can afford; consequently, the best health care will only be provided to the wealthy. The very profit motive that you claim will protect consumers will only protect a few; for as the desire for more profit pushes prices up, those who cannot afford will have to be content with the "bottom of the barrel" and will be preyed upon by those who know that they have no where else to go. In order to ensure that everyone receives good care, we must have a socially funded, centralized health care system.
Clearly, their values and beliefs are incompatible. It's easy to say "well, one is right and the other is obviously wrong; they just need more data." I cannot make that statement. For I have seen equally compelling evidence coupled with equally compelling interpretations from both positions on this and other issues.
I'll write more about this later. It's an interesting situation, to say the least.
Posted by pjaussen at September 20, 2004 04:51 PM