Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Peaceful Dave's avatar

A subject dear to me. At different times in my life, I have been a registered Democrat, Republican and Libertarian. At this time, I am registered unaffiliated. On some issues I tilt right, others left and others neither. My views have changed on some matters, others not so much. I see no reason for anyone to walk in lockstep with all of the beliefs of any political tribe.

Quoting Muhammad Ali, "The man who views the world at 50 the same as he did at 20 has wasted 30 years of his life."

The thing about bad beliefs is that I can sometimes understand how people can embrace some of them. Partly because there have been times in my life when I entertained them. Those can be honestly discussed in hope of flawed ideas being rejected. When the reason is political partisanship/tribalism and a defense of an associated label it is a much more difficult task. Most difficult is when their belief is based upon uncomfortable facts that lead to a pyrrhic victory.

Expand full comment
Grow Some Labia's avatar

I don't know that you're all that far apart with Maria. I disagree with some of what she said about the dangers of wokeism but I doubt she and I would fight too much if we sat down for coffee. I don't think one necessarily *should* change being 'liberal' or 'conservative'. Both are very broad, encompassing ideologies encompassing many different ideas and values and policies, not all of them bad. Jonathan Haidt argues that liberals and conservatives can work together to bring out the best in both ideas, and they temper each other's tendency toward going too extreme. Like the welfare state: I believe in the need of a taxpayer-paid social safety net for people who are down on their luck, and who didn't do as well as others in the birth lottery, but it shouldn't be something you rely on and don't work, which is what conservatives worry about and liberals pooh-pooh. And I say, "Exhibit A illustrating the conservative concern is living across the hall from me." Wonderful lady, but she's got mental health issues within her control to deal with and she hasn't, and she's admitted she'd rather just continue to be taken care of by the entities who are doing so now. I don't think she's lazy, I think she'd like to have a different life but doesn't pursue it for a lot of different fears that are understandable, but not excusable.

So to talk about erasing poverty by just throwing money at it isn't the answer, as some liberals would have it, nor is it 'pulling yourself up by your bootstraps' without help from others as the Reagan-style conservatives held it. We need to help some folks with their own bootstraps, for a time anyway, but structure the safety net in such a way that people are encouraged, and pushed, to get off it unless they have *genuine* debilitating mental health issues they can't just decide to deal with.

The real problem we face is we become too married to our ideas and ideologies and don't want to hear anything that contradicts them. Often it's not wanting to admit to ourselves we were wrong about something, or it somehow offends our self-image (like challenging victimhood narratives).

I'd like to see people become less hardcore <whatever label> and treat their ideology more like a salad bar - take what works for you and leave the rest, but be mindful that what you consume and retain should be *healthy* for you and those around you.

Expand full comment
46 more comments...

No posts