Guest Blog: On Reframing Political Values
Listen to this article:
TL;DR: My friend J.R. offers a framework to understand how good people can come to opposing political beliefs, and through this mutual recognition, be able to better communicate their ideas to each other.
America’s political pendulum swings ever farther to the left and right.
How do we stop it?
We live in a political world that appears to have broken into two camps; the progressive left and conservative right. There seems to be no position in which these two camps agree, they present themselves as polar opposites in every way, and each camp’s subscribers no longer speak to those on the other side. Even family members are willing to disassociate, and they have consolidated their acquaintances to be only those who follow the strict ideological dogma of their respective association.
Why is this happening? Are these camps, and the people who make them up, truly antithetical to each other? Although I am aware that some may disagree with what I am about to share, I have come to conclude, that what makes the aggregate of each camp different from its contemporary, is a foundational subscription to a hierarchy of competing values. Let me explain:
Equality v. Liberty
When you listen objectively to the policy issues that are important to contemporary progressives and why, there is an underlying theme. The value of equality appears to be the foundational tenet from where most of their positions are built. The belief that all human beings have the same intrinsic value and ought to be treated accordingly. Whether it’s criminal justice reform, marriage equality, or any other host of policy issues, I find this to be the bedrock concern that motivates their support. I also find, when a situation presents itself where equality is pitted against another value, the concern for equality generally supersedes its contender.
When the same objective listening is afforded to contemporary conservatives, a different value emerges supreme; liberty. The idea that all human beings ought to enjoy the freedom of their own decisions and sovereignty. That individuals can combat the eternal unfairness of human existence on their own terms. That each individual knows how best to live their own lives, and ought not be subjected to the will of others. We see this manifest itself in policy issues such as smaller government, less taxation, and deregulation of the economy. I find that this value, when pitted against others, is generally placed in higher regard than its would-be contender.
Although I recognize that partisans of each camp will point out specific policy stances, on either side, that would seem to contradict my conclusion (I would argue that the nuances of those positions would probably allow for them to eventually fit into this framework; but I digress), I find my general theory explains the holistic, overall stances of either ideology. I believe that this perspective explains, not only a variety of policy disagreements we see in contemporary discourse, but also extends into how individuals go through their lives. But how can these two values really be the cause of such bitter disagreements? Most Americans would agree that both, equality and liberty, are virtues that should be strived for, so where is the problem? The division becomes apparent when you follow each concept to its philosophical extreme: they are, in fact, mutually exclusive.
Conceptualizing the Extremes
Most Americans do not hold the extreme position of either concept, instead, most favor one to the other on a relative spectrum of conviction. But, for our thought experiment, following these concepts to their most extreme, allows us to see the fundamental assumptions that separate them.
A world of perfect equality is an authoritarian world, void of choice. If every human being is to look at each other, absent of judgments, we inherently must live in a world of sameness. One cannot own material objects that others do not possess, for that creates inequality. One cannot be recognized for achievements or skills that others do not possess, for that creates inequality. In the pursuit of extreme equality, reality requires that we sacrifice our ability to make individual choices; each diversion in choice separates us from each other.
In the extreme of liberty, we experience a world of anarchy, void of progress. Each individual is free to choose their own actions, absent of any repercussions separate from the choice itself, or the actions of other equally free individuals. One must always worry themselves about their immediate need, and the possibility that all the comforts of their life may be taken in an instant, without recourse or protection, outside of what they are individually capable of doing to prevent it. Every person must be viewed either as a potential threat, or transactional friend, and the oppression of others only serves as an advantage to your own personal gain.
Again, most Americans would not subscribe to either extreme, but the exploration of these extremes helps us understand the foundational crux that emerges between people who value equality over liberty and those who value liberty over equality. Perfect equality necessitates the elimination of liberty, and perfect liberty creates conditions where equality cannot exist. So is there a way to marry the two concepts, and if so, which parts of the equation does each ideological side get right, and wrong? Though the following statement may be viewed as a cliché ‘American’ response, I readily accept that judgment, because I wholeheartedly find it to be true. We need look no further than the American Founders for the answer.
A Way Forward
The Declaration of Independence explores the concept of equality and liberty but once, and in the same sentence:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” (Declaration of Independence, 1776).
Why did the Founders choose to write “all men are created equal”? Why not state, “all men are equal”? It is because they understood that equality of outcome is not only impossible in a world where human beings have freedom of choice, but also undesirable. That each and every decision of our lives will result in negative or positive consequences, and the sum total of this life of decisions, will ultimately lead to unequal outcomes. However, this statement also stressed the importance of equal opportunity. Justice in liberty can only exist if each and every human being suffers only the consequences of their choices, and not for circumstances beyond that. We must all be created equal, and aspects of your existence that you’ve been created with (the amount of melatonin in your skin, genitalia you possess, or whom you find attractive, etc.) ought not force you to suffer. In addition, the fact that the Founders followed the concept of liberty with “pursuit of happiness”, only further reinforces the undesirability of equal outcomes. You are free to make choices that you believe will bring you happiness, yet you have no guarantee that those choices will produce happiness. This philosophical framework creates a balance of the two concepts, by establishing a world of meritocracy. Where, through the authority of government, we sacrifice our choice to persecute others due to unchosen characteristics of their existence, yet accept that through our decisions we will reach unequal outcomes.
So… where do we go from here? Well, through the framework above, we see that, as with most political frameworks and ideologies, each side gets a part of the equation right. Our society in the United States does not allot equal opportunities for every person born. There have been studies, upon studies, conducted throughout the world, and at different times in our history, that reinforce that certain demographics face more opposition in their pursuit of happiness. This opposition is often based on characteristics of their existence beyond the scope of their control. When progressives recognize this, and pursue to change it, they are right. We cannot place our freedom of choice above the right for all people to be free from the consequences of these unchosen characteristics. Recognition of this truth is the beauty of participating in a society aimed at creating a more perfect union. However, progressives who move past the equality of creation, to the equality of outcome, should be denounced and recognized for their ideological failure.
When conservatives recognize that individuals should be allowed to self-determine to the greatest extent, and suffer the positive or negative consequences of their actions, they are also correct. We should not relinquish our liberties in the pursuit of equal qualities of life amongst us. We should relish in the beauty of our own journeys, and resist those whom wish to determine how we should live our lives. However, conservatives who believe that America is already a place of equal opportunity, or that equality to opportunities shouldn’t supersede their individual right to not afford those opportunities, are wrong. They should similarly be denounced for their ideological failure.
Conclusion
While many may rationalize that what separates us politically cannot simply be boiled down to a battle between equality and liberty, this distillation has helped me understand how two relatively decent human beings, can come to such different political conclusions in our modern discourse. This lens has prohibited me from believing that millions of Americans who disagree with my preferred political policy, are somehow less educated than me, or less moral, or simply evil. My hope is that recognition of which value your opposition may hold in more esteem, may help us better communicate our ideas in a way they might understand. It may also help our own humility, in accepting why someone may disagree with our policy stances, and that we can still accept their friendship. This perspective has not only grown my empathy, it has grown my hope that reconciliation is possible. If you’ve gotten this far in my essay, I appreciate that you decided to spend some of your time considering my ideas. I thank you for that, and sincerely hope that if you found it helpful, that you apply it in your daily political lives.
