Mankind has always known a struggle between opposing world views. Think of the choice offered to Adam and Eve: stay in a sheltered partnership of law and order or venture into the unknown armed with your god-like wits. Many long years later, conservative vs liberal conflict can give balance to existence or cause bitter discord and separation.
People get ideas and beliefs from their families, from education, and from circumstances of childhood. As they enter into adult freedom and responsibility, these ideas may change. Remember the student demonstrations of the sixties? Many a former hippie has given up extremely liberal views as he or she matures, enters the workforce, and raises a family.
For instance, a person who got their first credit card in college and ran up significant debt during their twenties might have learned to control their money. Having learned that 'buy now pay later' can have serious consequences, they might take a dim view of politicians who vote for popular but costly programs that tip the public budget into the red.
Of course, liberals might see programs that cost a bundle as necessary for the common good. They feel that an able-bodied adult who is not working but staying home to care for small children merits public support. Actually, few disagree with that fact. The difference of opinion comes in the extent of aid. Fiscal conservatives say that an unwed mother should not receive aid if there is a biological father around who will or can be made to support their children.
This divide in social and economic opinion can tear a country apart, or it can guide it into a balanced state where the poor are helped while the able-bodied work for themselves and others. Most people don't mind paying reasonable taxes to support government services, but many feel that abuses make the cost too high. Conservatives feel that tighter controls over welfare, health care aid, and student loans (to name some programs) could keep the aid open to those who really need it without enabling those who do not.
History shows that it is hard for political leaders to balance freedom and compassion, even when these values are paramount. (The records are full of leaders who talked of the common good but who, in reality, sought their own advancement.) People who feel that the government should mandate education of children might truly believe that this is the best way. However, if public policy constrains those who have a different opinion from teaching their own children at home, it smacks of tyranny.
Of course, not everything is fiscal. There are controversies over the role of religion in public life, over what should be taught in schools, over what drives the economy, over what harms the environment, over how to raise children, and more. The structure of family and marriage is under debate. The role of individual countries in a global society is another source of friction.
However, conservative vs liberal opinions are equally important if a country is to be healthy and strong. When the balance is skewed one way or another, nations struggle and even fall. We depend on our leaders to see both sides of any question.
People get ideas and beliefs from their families, from education, and from circumstances of childhood. As they enter into adult freedom and responsibility, these ideas may change. Remember the student demonstrations of the sixties? Many a former hippie has given up extremely liberal views as he or she matures, enters the workforce, and raises a family.
For instance, a person who got their first credit card in college and ran up significant debt during their twenties might have learned to control their money. Having learned that 'buy now pay later' can have serious consequences, they might take a dim view of politicians who vote for popular but costly programs that tip the public budget into the red.
Of course, liberals might see programs that cost a bundle as necessary for the common good. They feel that an able-bodied adult who is not working but staying home to care for small children merits public support. Actually, few disagree with that fact. The difference of opinion comes in the extent of aid. Fiscal conservatives say that an unwed mother should not receive aid if there is a biological father around who will or can be made to support their children.
This divide in social and economic opinion can tear a country apart, or it can guide it into a balanced state where the poor are helped while the able-bodied work for themselves and others. Most people don't mind paying reasonable taxes to support government services, but many feel that abuses make the cost too high. Conservatives feel that tighter controls over welfare, health care aid, and student loans (to name some programs) could keep the aid open to those who really need it without enabling those who do not.
History shows that it is hard for political leaders to balance freedom and compassion, even when these values are paramount. (The records are full of leaders who talked of the common good but who, in reality, sought their own advancement.) People who feel that the government should mandate education of children might truly believe that this is the best way. However, if public policy constrains those who have a different opinion from teaching their own children at home, it smacks of tyranny.
Of course, not everything is fiscal. There are controversies over the role of religion in public life, over what should be taught in schools, over what drives the economy, over what harms the environment, over how to raise children, and more. The structure of family and marriage is under debate. The role of individual countries in a global society is another source of friction.
However, conservative vs liberal opinions are equally important if a country is to be healthy and strong. When the balance is skewed one way or another, nations struggle and even fall. We depend on our leaders to see both sides of any question.
No comments:
Post a Comment