Political Polarization

All of us have an inherent desire to be part of something bigger than ourselves. This is why communities band together to accomplish great things, why people donate their hard earned money to religions and causes, and why societies have built glorious structures and edifices still standing today. But what happens when people don’t have something to be part of? What do people do when there is no problem to rally around and fix?

With certain groups of people there are inherent problems or causes that require consistent banding together. Some of these causes help everyone in society and some of these inconvenience others. If we look to the two polarizations defined in this blog as being ‘those who believe in God (or a supreme being)’ and ‘those who don’t', there are many causes that lend themselves to one side or the other.

The main cause for those who believe in a God is that of sin and unhappiness. Most religions believe that man is in a fallen and sinful state, which causes unhappiness. Religions are established for the purpose of helping man return to the presence of God (Heaven) and be redeemed from their sins. In the process of taking steps towards redemption and Heaven (or some kind of exalted state) followers are taught to make decisions that will bring them happiness here and now in this life. Most religious people see their religion as a cause bigger than themselves. First, because the religion is bringing redemption to people, second because it is guiding people to happiness in their current lives, and third because sharing a religion with others is bringing the first two benefits to even more people. This is why many people are involved with missionary programs sharing the happiness that they have found with others. Most people on the ‘believing God side’ of America’s Political Polarization find fulfillment to the “something bigger than themselves” need by being involved in their churches. This includes sharing their views with others, helping out their communities through service, and contributing to those in need in other nations through church donations.

Those who don’t believe in God (or a supreme being) don’t have such an obvious way to fulfill the “something bigger than themselves” need. They therefore have to be much more creative in order to fulfill that basic human need. Two of the biggest ways of doing this is being involved in politics and activism. This allows people to be part of a larger progressive political movement that involves helping out the needy of the world, fixing the problems in our country, and making good moral decisions for the nation. Many people push these agendas strongly because they feel that they will make life better for everyone, make things more fair, and not impede on the pursuit of happiness of others. But still, people can often become consumed over following and promoting these causes because it fulfills that basic human need of “being part of something bigger than themselves”.

But, what happens when, like mentioned earlier, there isn’t something to be fixed? What if everyone was religious and didn’t need to be preached to? What if the progressive political movement got its way? Would people stop preaching or stop being activists? No, they would find something else to rally behind. The scary thing is that this basic human need can often cause us to rally behind damaging things like cults and political reform that hurts everyone else. Sometimes we need to stop and take a look at why we are rallying behind a cause. Is it because it is something with merit that should be pushed and will better mankind and the human condition, or is it simply a means for us to selfishly fulfill that basic human need of “being part of something bigger than ourselves”?

Change has been a big topic of discussion over the last year and a half with the elections, but what does it really mean? To a lot of individuals change is looked at as something to change their personal lives. If they have a low income, they would want it to change to a higher income. If they have debt, they would like it to change to no debt. And if they have sadness, they would like it to change to happiness. Is it possible for an election or the government to provide this kind of change on a personal level?

It makes sense that the liberal ticket pushed change the most. That is what liberal basically means. They don’t like the way things currently are, so they want to change them. Conservatism on the other hand means that people want to conserve the way things are. The funny thing with the 2008 election is that both candidates wanted change. They wanted to change Washington and that is the one thing that hasn’t changed in the past six months. Congress is just as reckless and partisan as ever. I find that we usually have too much of either extreme represented when it comes to change. There is one group that is afraid of change, trying to stop it from happening; and the other is trying to force it upon us. What about letting change happen naturally? What about analyzing how are current situation is, weighing new options, and making a few smart changes in order to improve the situation.

A good example of this can be seen by looking at three farmers. The first farmer rejects change, insisting on staying with old technology to plow his fields, and harvest his crops. He uses tried and true methods to produce a consistent yet small crop. The second farmer embraces every new piece of technology or technique. He buys the latest and greatest expensive equipment to help him effectively cultivate and harvest more crops. He usually has a large crop, but he spends all of his earnings trying to pay off the debt from the new technology. The third farmer uses the traditional techniques while embracing new technology when it has proven itself. He purchases new equipment from the second farmer when it has been used for a season. He is not afraid to try new techniques and mix them with the old ways. His crop is a little larger than the first farmer and not as big as the second farmer, but his profits are far greater than the other two farmers combined. He effectively takes whats good from the old and what is good from the new to mix them together and create a more successful crop.

I wish that this middle opinion could be better represented in Washington. I wish that we could look at the old and the new and pick out the best aspects. I wish that we could be open to change without trying to force everyone into it. I wish that we could realize that taking this middle road would be better for everyone.

Why are there liberals and conservatives? Why are there two main parties? Why does everyone (even though they may not admit it) find themselves leaning towards one side or the other? I believe that there is a fundamental polarity that divides people. It causes them to lean more towards one side or the other because it governs their sense of logic, their ideas of right and wrong, and their thoughts of justice. This is why people from one perspective often feel that their opponents are not being logical. It is not that the opponent is being illogical; it is that they have a different basis to their logic, which fundamentally disagrees with the logic of the opposing side. Many people will automatically disagree with the polarization that I am about to set forth, because they personally find themselves on one side of the polarization while on the other side of the political spectrum. I say that they are either in denial of what side of the polarity they are actually on, are deceived by many crafty issues into feeling that they agree with a certain political side, or are caught in the grey area in the middle. There is a lot of grey area. I don’t think that one political idea is good and another is bad or that this polarity should define how people vote. I think that the polarity is simply an underlying force that pulls people more towards one side or the other.

Enough already! You are saying. Tell us what the polarity is. I simply had to prepare you so that you would be more willing to digest and think upon what I am suggesting. I feel that the polarity is on one side, the belief that there is a God (or creator) who is just, merciful, and mindful of the inhabitants of the earth, and on the other side, that we are simply finite beings on this world defining and enforcing our own justice and mercy. Notice how I didn’t say those who believe in God and those who don’t, because I feel that there are a lot of people who say they believe in God and go to church and follow all of the tradition to simply glean some of the good feelings whilst truly believing in a finite existence. I also believe that there are many people who have given up on organized religion, but have a belief in and relationship with an infinite force or figure. These polarities have a tendency to define value systems, form common sense, and structure ones logic. These core polarities will usually cause a person to lean one way or another on certain issues. They will often say that choosing a certain side seams more logical or makes more sense, but since their logic is based in which polarity they lean toward, they are really saying that they choose one side because it is more in line with their core values or polarity.

Example: The Polarity of Abortion
The conservative standpoint on abortion is that it is a divinely created life that we do not have the right to terminate. It is logical to a conservative to feel this way since they believe that we are all children of a creator and if we terminate the life of a brother or sister, we will be judged and held accountable for that action at a later date. The liberal view is that they are defending the right of someone to choose what happens to their own body. It is logical to them because there is no necessary spirit or personality in a fetus, it is just an organism similar to an egg, which women have millions of and get rid of every month, and there will be no judgment of actions at a later date because life is finite.

Almost every partisan issues follows this theory of political polarization. Obviously everything in politics is not black and white, it is a lot of grey derived by mixing the two polarized sides with each other. I know that looking at issues in this manner can help everyone to understand the opposing side and help anybody see through the lame excuses that are often given for why a certain side supports a particular issue.