Worldviews

Worldviews are like numeral systems: it is far too common to become trapped in them.  We are all used to counting numbers. It’s easy: 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.  But we forget that we are counting in a particular system, the decimal system.

A quick review, for those who have gone rusty on the idea of numeral systems.  We have ten symbols in our counting system: 0 through 9.  When we reach the number ten we run out of symbols and roll over to another place, resulting in 10.  The 1 symbol is now in the tens place and therefore represents ten ones.

So far, so good.  What we forget is that we don’t need to count in decimal.  We can count in any system we like.  Let’s count in binary, where we only have two symbols: 0 and 1.  We start with 0, then go to 1, then go to 10.  Whoa!  Now the 1 symbol is in the same place it was before, but it represents one one instead of ten ones.  Thus 10 now means two.  If we count all the way to ten in binary we get 1010.

Or we can count in hexadecimal, which has 16 symbols: 0-9 and a-f.  Counting up to the number nine is the same as in decimal, but when we get to ten instead of going to 10 we go to a.  Then b is eleven, c is twelve, d is thirteen, e is fourteen, and f is fifteen.  When we get to sixteen we roll over to 10.  Now the 1 symbol represents sixteen ones.

OK, you get the point, but what does it have to do with worldviews?  Well, like numeral systems, we tend to get stuck in worldviews.  When you think about counting, you probably think about counting in the decimal system.  But those are actually two different things: counting, and counting in a specific system.  You could just as easily count in binary or hexadecimal or any other system.

That’s not to say that a worldview is bad.  A numeral system isn’t bad either; the decimal system helps us understand counting and interpret and filter the numbers in the world around us.  But we should remember that the decimal system is just one way of looking at counting.  Similarly, a worldview is just one way of looking at the world around us.  Other people may have other worldviews, and that doesn’t make them either right or wrong.

When it comes to politics, at least in America, we have two worldviews: Conservative and Liberal.  We should remember that both worldviews want to do the same thing: improve America, just like all numeral systems want to count.  Just because we don’t count like someone else counts, doesn’t mean they don’t count too.

Values

The Republicans like to talk a lot about “values” during election.  We have “traditional values” and “family values” and “American values” and we’re told to “vote our values.”  Sometimes, though, I think that the Republicans have forgotten exactly what the definition of what a value is.  It seems like “values” has come to mean only a subset of values, usually comprising a conservative social agenda.

But if a value is something that I value, then the spectrum of my “values” is suddenly much broader.  I value many things.  Like conservatives I value life and family.  But I also value liberty and change.  I value education, honor, freedom, respect, calm, and many, many other things.

When people support Obama, they are supporting their values.  They see in Obama many of the things that they value: leadership, intelligence, inspiration, steadfastness, and more.  The Republican party holds no monopoly on values.

Change

Likewise, the Democrats like to talk a lot about change, especially during this election.  They talk about bringing change to Washington without letting it change us and about changing America’s course.  It’s worth remembering, however, that change never lasts.

Now before you denounce me as a cynic, let me explain: change is like a revolution.  Once the revolutionaries are in power they are no longer revolutionaries.  They may have forced their revolution, and brought about their change, but now they are the status quo.*  It’s no longer change, it is now “what is.”

Change is a good thing in this election, and it is something that we need.  But the Democrats should remember that once they bring about change they will need to govern too, and it is often a lot less popular to govern than it is to change things.

* This is not my observation.  I remember reading it in an academic publication, but I can’t remember who the author was now.

I found the talk intriguing, and similar to my own views.  Part of what makes America amazing is that we have been able to do just that.  As I wrote to a friend this week:

It’s probable that I will never be able to give any reason that some people will think is good enough to justify voting for Obama.  If this is the case, let’s at least agree to respect each others views; to recognize that their is intelligence, wisdom, patriotism, and goodness on both sides of the aisle; and refuse to demonize the other party as insane baby-killers or torture-happy maniacs.  This country has come through two hundred and fifty years with people having deep disagreements over issues, and it is better for that.  But that is only because we have always been able to recognize that we are all Americans and we all bring something to the table.

So watch Haidt’s talk over at TED and think, briefly, outside of the traditional liberal-conservative framework.

I have read on your blog opinions expressing frustration with the Republican Party. As a conservative Republican myself, I want people to know that I share their frustration. There are a number of shortcomings within the Republican Party; I work for a Republican politician who feels the same way. Therefore, I feel as if I need to stand up and explain why, with all the frustration they cause, I have not been moved to the center or to the left.

I know that being an evangelical Christian conservative is nothing out of the norm. However, many of those who bear this title are severely misguided or just unwilling to broaden their perspective and hear out all sides of issues (I think the same can be said of many liberals). I don’t count myself as one of these and I know plenty of others who do not fall into this category. Throughout this election, from the time I heard Senator Obama announce his candidacy live, I have been wondering what his actual policies are. He can certainly move a crowd (seriously, I almost cried) but after sitting and reflecting on what he said, I felt like there was not much substance. When Senator McCain emerged as the Republican nominee, I wanted substance and specific policies solutions from him as well. I want to know how they want to change America other than by winning a historic election. After doing some research and watching part of the debate last Friday, it’s starting to become clearer what their policy goals are, 19 months from the start and 2 months before Election Day. (Side note: I work in the legislative branch of government and still do not understand why in the world we get so caught up in presidential elections and presidential promises when the executive has no power to actually write law, it’s your locally elected Representative and Senators who do the lawmaking!)

I don’t doubt that politicians on both sides of the aisle are doing what they think is best based on their ideologies, which brings me to my main point. I am a conservative not because of abortion or life issues or homosexual marriage. I am a conservative because I fundamentally believe that caring for the poor, the homeless, the widows and the orphans is not the job of the government. This is the role of the church. Can you imagine how much the church could do if Christians gave and reached out through the church? The pastor of the church I grew up in has a vision for that church of being what he calls the “social center of kindness”—they have a café that serves affordable meals, a game room for youth to have a safe place to hang out, church members can “adopt” widows (at home and abroad), a community exchange for those looking to get rid of/ obtain furniture or other necessities, and he one day sees our church having a health clinic of sorts for those who can’t afford to go see the doctor on their own. The problem is, of the over 1200 members of the church, less than ten families tithe faithfully.

Reaching out to those in need is the church’s chance to show the love of Christ! When we abdicate that role and pursue policies which perpetuate reliance on government, we fail to do so. I work in government because I believe in the political process, in the average American having a voice in Washington, and in legislation and policy that can make our country a better place without increasing the size and scope of the government. I want to find a church where I can throw myself into volunteering because I see it as my duty as a Christian.

People say Republicans are cold hearted—they don’t care about poor people; they hate the environment; they’re a bunch of whiners in Congress this session. I would say only the last one of those statements is true. My heart breaks for those living in poverty. I don’t think a government program on the federal level is going to help. The same goes for universal healthcare. We live in a large, culturally and economically diverse country. A federal healthcare plan is not only huge and costly, but what works for Americans in New York is not necessarily what works for Americans in Kansas. In my conservative opinion, decisions and funding for programs such as these are better left to individual States.

I could go on with examples, but I hope my point is clear. The Republican Party has turned into an incoherent group of whiners who have no idea how to craft their message and cannot handle being in the minority. Still, fundamentally, I’m conservative and cannot agree with liberal policies proposed by the Democratic Party. I don’t think this means either side is going to hell for holding the political beliefs that they do

Let me preface by saying that my brother is one of the most intelligent people I know, and someone whose opinion I seek, especially on issues that I don’t understand well.  Prominent among these issues are questions concerning anything science related (from science questions to science ethics to Christianity and science), as Steve is an engineer and his wife is a biologist.

A Basis for Discussion

Over the past seven years I have had quite some time to reflect on the state of the world, politics, political issues, and the way this country is run in general. During that time a number of my positions have shifted, to the point where now I would classify myself more as an left-leaning independent than anything else. However, the issues themselves aren’t what I want to discuss today. I want to discuss something more foundational: the way people in the USA approach politics.

Specifically, I would like to discuss what I see as some serious drawbacks or shortcomings in the way that conservatives/Republicans think about and deal with politics. Let me make clear: what I’m about to say are my perceptions. I obviously feel they are accurate perceptions, but some of you will disagree and I can accept that. Let me also reiterate that while I will touch on issues, the issues themselves aren’t my main focus here.

The first shortcoming that I have noticed more and more is a tendency among conservatives to strongly favor character evaluation over discussion of issues. Character is certainly important, I agree. However, I personally find it very difficult to divorce character from the issues at stake. I feel, however, that many of my conservative friends and relatives make precisely that distinction. For example, I’ve heard Obama referred to as having a “silver tongue”, or of being all talk and no walk. I hear people all the time bashing the Clintons for their (valid) character shortcomings. I cringed when I heard the sarcastic quote from Palin’s speech about a mayor being like a community organizer, but actually having real responsibilities. All of these are character criticisms, which while valid to a certain extent, completely miss the point of discussing the issues themselves.

This is a trend both within the official Republican party and among everyday folks who are conservatives. It extends not only to candidates, but also to “liberals” in general. Conservatives tend to view liberals as selfish (discussed later) sinners, and therefore discount what they have to say about issues before they even open their mouths. It reminds me a bit of the pharisees who told the blind man who was healed, “You were steeped in sin at birth. How dare you lecture us!” and then threw him out of the temple.

Which brings me to my second point. I often hear people refer to liberals as selfish. Again, this seems to be a relatively blanket character evaluation, and also divorces character from issues. I certainly have met some selfish liberals (and conservatives too). I know a lot of selfish liberal politicians. But when it comes to issues, I find that the selfishness is a bit on the other side of the equation. With the exceptions of abortion and protectionist trade policy, most Democratic positions come in on what I consider the unselfish side. It seems to me less selfish to take the positions of socialized health care (giving up your money for the common good), larger welfare programs (ditto), gun control (giving up your rights for the common good), higher taxes (again with the money), a more lenient immigration policy (being willing to share your country with others), civil rights (being willing to let others do things you think are wrong), the environment (giving up some financial gain now to preserve the world for your children), and other things. You can debate what does or does not work, certainly, what is or is not a good idea, whether it is right to take away this or that from individuals and families, or what will or will not be economic suicide. But even so, how is it that the “selfish” party supports all these things that aren’t very beneficial to the self? Maybe we should discuss the issues and the values embedded in them, not the selfishness levels of those who hold the positions.

Third, I find the conservative distrust of the media, science, and education extremely frustrating. Frustrating both because I don’t understand it, and frustrating because I think it blinds people to important information. I read the New York Times. For many people, the New York Times is the epitomy of the “liberal media” and cannot be trusted. A lot of people don’t trust the BBC either, which I personally think is one of the best news organizations on the planet. Many conservatives will only get their news from Fox News. This is something that official party rhetoric plays into. (See, for example, all the recent media-bashing comments at the RNC.) I have to ask, though, what is the basis for all this media-bashing? I find news coverage I read to be fairly unbiased. (Editorials are a different matter, but the NY Times has editorial writers at both ends of the party spectrum.) Sometimes I think people see media reports that conflict with their personal opinions, then dismiss the reports as from “the liberal media.” But in a viscious circle, people characterize the media as liberal because they don’t agree with the reports they right. I, on the other hand, am of the opinion that media organizations honestly try to report fairly and accurately. Sometimes they fail, but they at least try. It makes little business sense to do otherwise, nor can I see any motivation for it. So all this bashing of the media feels to me somewhat like the quote “I reject your reality and substitute my own.”

The same goes for the perceptions of the educated liberal elite and liberal science. It really confuses me that we mistrust so deeply those precise people who have dedicated their lives to learning and the discovery of truth. (Global warming for example: all scientists say it is happening, but somehow a large portion of the general public, and also many a politician, disbelieves them?) I imagine this stems a lot from the creation/evolution debate, over which, I admit, the scientific community has given itself a huge black eye. Nevertheless, I don’t make the assumption that someone is wrong because they know a lot, but that is precisely the assumption I see made with many conservatives. It runs both ways as well; sometimes people dismiss me as an “educated liberal” for my views, even though I have exactly the same degree (a bachelors) as the segment of educated society most likely to vote Republican (people with college degrees but not graduate degrees – see the Gallup poll). In my case, I prefer to take what educated researchers and scientists tell me at face value, and then discuss the issues based on that. If everyone did that, I think the debate could both be more civil and better informed.

The last disappointment I have is that I often see a separation in the Republican party between “moral” issues and other issues, as if some issues aren’t about morality at all. “Moral” issues for conservatives include homosexuality and abortion… that’s about it. (What am I missing?) Other issues may have moral aspects, but they aren’t as important. As Jim said, I think this is a fallacy; almost every issue has significant moral components. Often, evaluating the morality isn’t straightforward. (Is it better to promote free trade and cause people to lose jobs, or restrict trade and see the economy suffer? What does more harm/good?) Nevertheless, the morality is there. This is extremely clear to me in issues of war, torture, and the environment. These issues have huge moral implications, but conservatives hardly touch on them. Instead, they treat them as practical issues, issues that need only be address on the merits of what is useful for something else (usually the economy or national security).

So, in summary, what I really wish is that when I talk to a conservative about politics, that what I would be able to do is discuss the issues themselves, and when I do that to discuss all aspects of the issues. I don’t want rejection of a discussion or information based on source (media, science, education, or a “selfish liberal”), and I don’t want dismissal of a discussion based on a perceived character flaw. I do want to be able to discuss morality of all issues, in addition to their practicality, impacts, and other aspects. I feel that if I could just get to that point, the conversation would go much better. (I can’t also help but think that a lot more conservatives would see things differently, but you can discuss the issues themselves with me for that.)

My own comments are as follows:

• Concerning character vs. issues, I think this is less a problem with a specific segment of the population and more one with politics as a whole.  While I have heard plenty of anti-Obama statements based (often with no good reasoning) on character issues, I have also heard people criticize him because he doesn’t talk about the issues.  (Whether or not this is true is a different matter, but I would question whether the criticizer had perhaps not read “The Blueprint for Change.”)  It’s a sad fact that political discussion today is so easily sidetracked.
• On the idea of selfishness, I find Steve’s point here fastening.  I haven’t heard this specific criticism of liberals myself, but his point remains.  I’ll address a similar subject in my next post.
• When it comes to the “liberal media,” I too get tired of the constant accusations about how the mainstream media (MSM) is portraying things.  I have, however, seen plenty of liberals (especially on the social news websites) complain about what the MSM is ignoring.  Thus I take hope in the fact that when conservatives are accusing the media of being too liberal and liberals are accusing it of being too conservative, there probably isn’t that much of a bias.  Like Steve, I think that we’re probably doing pretty well when it comes to most of the media.
• Their approach to science does seem to be, sadly, a common failing of both Republicans and Christians.  I touched on this in another post once.  The problem is that there are so many issues that demonstrate good science, evolution and global warming being just a couple, that are completely dismissed.  Part of this may be that the media is determined to give a equal point of view to both sides (note that this is different from accusing it of being liberal or conservative) and thus seems to imply that both sides are valid.  A great example of this is offshore drilling, which will have little effect on our energy situation, according to even the government itself, but is still widely accepted by the American public.  (If you want the lowdown on offshore drilling, turn to Stephen Colbert.)
• Finally, on morality and politics, Steve is completely correct: everything is a moral issue.  Again, my next post will reflect some of this.  For a different take on the same subject, however, I would recommend this post.  While I tend to agree more with Steve, there are things to be said for both sides.

Note: Why  comments are disabled on this post.

So why is there an Obama logo on my website now?

Well, blame it on a lot of things. Blame it on the liberalizing influence of college. Blame it on certain friends of mine. Or blame it on blind stupidity.

Any of those could be true, I suppose. I don’t deny that I’ve become more liberal at college, I definitely have some friends who are quite liberal, and I could easily be mistaken about my beliefs. But there’s something more to it than that.

I’ve decided to support Obama because, as cliché as it may sound, his campaign really is change we can believe in. Obama’s personality, his message, and his appeal are unique in politics at the moment.

What message? The message of hope and change, not the policies behind that message. I don’t agree with a lot of Obama’s policies, but I don’t think that’s very important right now. At some point we have to get beyond the partisan divide over policies and see what it takes to be a great leader.

I’ve never seen someone rally young Americans like the Obama campaign does. In the long run, issues, ideas, and policies won’t change much. But someone who can get our youth to believe in democracy again: he can change the world.