Sunday, October 26, 2008

On...Random Thoughts

Random Thoughts

Simply put, Republicans (for various reasons) typically buy into the system. They tend to believe the system works and they can be successful and happy and safe within the system. They feel a part of the system. They understand that the system is not perfect and it can always be tweaked, but fundamentally it is sound. A Republic of Liberty supported by Free Markets and protected by individual duty and an overwhelming military is about as good as its going to get. Yes, there have been problems in the past and nothing is perfect but we should always be moving forward, in small, thoughtful ways. But for the most part if it's not broken leave it alone. They get mad or frustrated when they see the system being tampered with or unfairly criticized or pushed to its limits or reconfigured. Government should be under the people, not above it. The citizens are the adults and not the children of the government. The government should not "take care" of the people.

Democrats (again for various reasons) tend to believe in the system to a point, but believe it is broken and needs to be fixed or that it has been corrupted by larger than life forces (be it Big Oil or Wal-Mart or Karl Rove or Dick Cheney). Or they believe they are not part of the system. They feel like underdogs or outsiders. They are invited to the party but not really accepted. This is either real or imagined. Some are part of the system, but don't like the fact that others are not apart of it. They feel guilty about a whole collection of injustices, again some real and some exaggerated and some purely imagined. That's why they seem to want to change everything all the time. There is also the sense that we as a nation missed a turn a few decades ago and if could just get back on the highway things would be better. They have a sense of uneasiness about the system--that it could be better, much better, only if people would just work together and help out the little guy we could create the ideal system, one where no one was a loser or poor or had their feelings hurt. If we just embraced hope and change we could still be that city upon a hill. Everyone would be liked and the dirty, cruel aspects of being human could be eliminated or at least lessened. Democracy is fine but it could be better. Free markets are okay if we could only remove the hardship of failure. Equality of opportunity is fine, but equality of outcome is better. If only people had more civic virtue and were willing to sacrifice more for the common good. If only people listened to them since they have all the answers.

Of course both parties have cranks or followers who are just in the party because they are.

Theorizers

The problem lies in human nature. Humans are selfish creatures. When that selfishness can be harnessed it can create a better world. When the selfishness is caged, people will seek an outlet. There are never enough good, wise people to oversee every aspect of an amazingly dynamic nation/economy/government. Some people however think that people are or should be selfless martyrs--they should be alturistic.

A problem with the theorizers of a better system, according to Adam Smith was that

the man of system...is apt to be very wise in his own conceit; and is often so enamored with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it.... He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board.
From Theory of Moral Sentiments

As the state grows it is infected with this notion--that we can make things so much better. Obviously this doesn't mean you stop trying new things, but dictating every move is impossible. The greater control you weld over more people, the greater the problems will manifest themselves. Spontaneous order is often more effective. Give people the rule of law and allow them the opportunity to live their life as they see fit, not as someone else believes they should live. If they are self-destructive, teach them. Do not use the rod of coercion to instill your plans. They will hate you for it. Some people (especially Americans) are stubborn and do not like being told what to do.

2 comments:

Unknown said...

I quote myself, unabashedly self important person that I am: Often what we think are the other persons underlying beliefs are just our opinions of those beliefs

Is it not possible that we just define equality of opportunity differently? That for some of us, equal opportunity necessarily entails health care for 4, 9, and 12 year olds? That we have come to understand that the ability to harness talents and succeed in school is related to the level of preventive care available to a child?

It isn't requiring an equal outcome, but a genuine equal start.

I swear, I am always starting stuff. I won't respond again, I promise. I'm done. That is IT!
Anyway, please check out the David Brooks article I mentioned in the other thread.

Mark A. Trexler said...

Equality of outcome/Equality of Opportunity that I speak of is most from my perspective as a teacher and the numerous articles and discussions we were forced to have at Wayne State regarding this issue. I have used it (and have seen it used) regarding economic achievement as well (i.e. pay and benefits).

It is curious that you have used it and related it to use in health care. That's new to me. I really don't have a problem with good health for little kiddies. I can see that actually being possible with health care as opposed to education and wealth/income.