Should: The liberal's playground
Gal Gadot's recent viral video of her and other stars singing John Lennon's Imagine rekindled a couple of ideas I have been trying to articulate for a while. Besides the video being a shameless, virtue-signaling, self-serving, void of substance fare you expect from Hollywood types, the song itself has always seemed to me a perfect example of liberal and progressive thought: wishing for something that cannot be ("Imagine there's no countries").
One of the foundational differences between conservatives and liberals is their belief and understanding of how the world works. That is stating the obvious, I know, but sometimes the obvious tempts one into failing to really analyze the obvious, or at least see the complexity that lies beneath. Specifically, I am talking about how the world is ordered and our species interacts. Or to put it a different way, the fundamental difference is that liberals tend to be idealist, while conservatives err on the realist side of the spectrum. Or yet a different way to state it is that liberals tend to live in the land of "Should" and conservatives tend to habit the land of "Are". These two vastly different perspectives are often the center of differences in policy beliefs, philosophical positions, and day-to-day choices.
"Should" is a word that attempts to make the point that things in their current state are not appropriate, fair, or ideal. Both the positive and negative (should not) form are equal, it just depends on how you phrase the statement. For example, here are some common liberal "shoulds" and "should nots": The top 1% should not own so much wealth. Women should have the same pay as men. People should be able to earn a living wage. People should have a right to health care. Money should not influence policy or politicians. We should develop alternative, clean energies. These statements all seem to be simple, reasonable, worthy and maybe even right. But behind these simplistic statements, much like Imagine, is a deceptive perspective, a mental slight of hand. While the statements look and sound simplistic, however, when one attempts to move that "should" into a reality, it finds that it is actually contending against the things that are. More on that later.
"Should", in reality, allows one to take positions on issues that appeal to our emotions without understanding the requirements for it to actually happen. "Should" provides liberals and progressives with two key feelings that are at the heart of their ideology. The first is the feeling of moral superiority and the second is the feeling of intellectual superiority. Together, these two emotional concepts provide the foundation for liberal ideology. Name any issue and one of these feelings will be at the center of the position. If both are present, then that issue is especially critical to liberal ideology. Let's use the 1% statement from above. When a liberal makes that claim, they do so because it is readily evident that the distribution of wealth is not equal, thus not fair. It is not merely unfair, it is unjust, which translates to immoral In that example, there are many different aspects of economics that we could discuss and analyze, and in doing so find out that there are a set complex realities that exist. Moreover, how one defines fairness or just plays a critical role in determining if that is immoral. The simple statement and its appeal to emotion, makes it "sound" really awful. What's important is, showing that you are on the right side of the issue. Climate change is a great example of when both moral and intellectual superiority combine to make that issue inarguable. The moral superiority of the argument sounds something like this, "We should solve climate change because it we need to save the earth for future generations" This statement implies an obligation to do something for others, it is a statement of sacrifice. When one does something for someone else, they are clearly on the moral high ground. The intellectual superiority of the issue is similar, "We should do something about climate change because there is a consensus of scientist who say the science is settled" Here, we see the appeal to science as the ultimate conductor of truth and objectivity.
One of my arguments as to why film and TV are mostly dominated by liberals is that the medium allows them to construct the world of "should" without having to face the existing realities. Films are able to control the vast amounts of variables that exist, edit any outcomes they don't like, and present characters in any light they wish. It is why many liberals love The West Wing. To them, Jed Bartlet was the ideal president. The world would be better with a president like him. However, we did elect him in 2008, and the result was less than what liberals hoped for.
Believing that something should be a certain way is not necessarily wrong. Not appreciating or considering the realities that exist within the framework of the situation, leads us down a path of constant conflict with the way things "are". The only way for the "shoulds" to become and maintain a reality, is a constant increase of power to enforce the "should". This reminds me of a game we used to play when I was young in the pool. We would get a ball or a boogie board and we would try to push it to the bottom of the pool and stand on it. It was extremely hard and exhausting, and inevitably it would rise to the surface. The natural order of things is for the ball to float. The energy, time, and resources to keep it at the bottom eventually come at a large cost. So it is with attempting to create policy from the emotional feelings of "should".
One of my favorite scriptures in the Bible is in Proverbs that says, "There is a way that seems right to man, but in the end leads to death." The obvious meaning is that men can rationalize, reason, and argue about how something should or should not be and believe it with all of their might, but cannot change the realities that exist. Conservative ideology, in contrast to liberalism, attempts to understand realities of people, institutions, organizations, and math to develop policies that align with those realities. History is replete with examples of how humans organize, interact, and relate. And you know what history tells us? Humans tend to be a very predictable species. The emotions, incentives, motives, and values have been pretty much the same for our entire existence. There are certain rules and realities that govern our behavior and lead to certain outcomes. I believe Jesus said the poor will always be with you. To which the liberal says, "hold my beer" or better, "Hold my organic soy latte."
Being a "dreamer" as John Lennon calls himself is not a bad thing. However, when you insist on making your "dreams" a reality, in contention with reality, then you get bad policy. But at least you will feel like you are a better person...
One of the foundational differences between conservatives and liberals is their belief and understanding of how the world works. That is stating the obvious, I know, but sometimes the obvious tempts one into failing to really analyze the obvious, or at least see the complexity that lies beneath. Specifically, I am talking about how the world is ordered and our species interacts. Or to put it a different way, the fundamental difference is that liberals tend to be idealist, while conservatives err on the realist side of the spectrum. Or yet a different way to state it is that liberals tend to live in the land of "Should" and conservatives tend to habit the land of "Are". These two vastly different perspectives are often the center of differences in policy beliefs, philosophical positions, and day-to-day choices.
"Should" is a word that attempts to make the point that things in their current state are not appropriate, fair, or ideal. Both the positive and negative (should not) form are equal, it just depends on how you phrase the statement. For example, here are some common liberal "shoulds" and "should nots": The top 1% should not own so much wealth. Women should have the same pay as men. People should be able to earn a living wage. People should have a right to health care. Money should not influence policy or politicians. We should develop alternative, clean energies. These statements all seem to be simple, reasonable, worthy and maybe even right. But behind these simplistic statements, much like Imagine, is a deceptive perspective, a mental slight of hand. While the statements look and sound simplistic, however, when one attempts to move that "should" into a reality, it finds that it is actually contending against the things that are. More on that later.
"Should", in reality, allows one to take positions on issues that appeal to our emotions without understanding the requirements for it to actually happen. "Should" provides liberals and progressives with two key feelings that are at the heart of their ideology. The first is the feeling of moral superiority and the second is the feeling of intellectual superiority. Together, these two emotional concepts provide the foundation for liberal ideology. Name any issue and one of these feelings will be at the center of the position. If both are present, then that issue is especially critical to liberal ideology. Let's use the 1% statement from above. When a liberal makes that claim, they do so because it is readily evident that the distribution of wealth is not equal, thus not fair. It is not merely unfair, it is unjust, which translates to immoral In that example, there are many different aspects of economics that we could discuss and analyze, and in doing so find out that there are a set complex realities that exist. Moreover, how one defines fairness or just plays a critical role in determining if that is immoral. The simple statement and its appeal to emotion, makes it "sound" really awful. What's important is, showing that you are on the right side of the issue. Climate change is a great example of when both moral and intellectual superiority combine to make that issue inarguable. The moral superiority of the argument sounds something like this, "We should solve climate change because it we need to save the earth for future generations" This statement implies an obligation to do something for others, it is a statement of sacrifice. When one does something for someone else, they are clearly on the moral high ground. The intellectual superiority of the issue is similar, "We should do something about climate change because there is a consensus of scientist who say the science is settled" Here, we see the appeal to science as the ultimate conductor of truth and objectivity.
One of my arguments as to why film and TV are mostly dominated by liberals is that the medium allows them to construct the world of "should" without having to face the existing realities. Films are able to control the vast amounts of variables that exist, edit any outcomes they don't like, and present characters in any light they wish. It is why many liberals love The West Wing. To them, Jed Bartlet was the ideal president. The world would be better with a president like him. However, we did elect him in 2008, and the result was less than what liberals hoped for.
Believing that something should be a certain way is not necessarily wrong. Not appreciating or considering the realities that exist within the framework of the situation, leads us down a path of constant conflict with the way things "are". The only way for the "shoulds" to become and maintain a reality, is a constant increase of power to enforce the "should". This reminds me of a game we used to play when I was young in the pool. We would get a ball or a boogie board and we would try to push it to the bottom of the pool and stand on it. It was extremely hard and exhausting, and inevitably it would rise to the surface. The natural order of things is for the ball to float. The energy, time, and resources to keep it at the bottom eventually come at a large cost. So it is with attempting to create policy from the emotional feelings of "should".
One of my favorite scriptures in the Bible is in Proverbs that says, "There is a way that seems right to man, but in the end leads to death." The obvious meaning is that men can rationalize, reason, and argue about how something should or should not be and believe it with all of their might, but cannot change the realities that exist. Conservative ideology, in contrast to liberalism, attempts to understand realities of people, institutions, organizations, and math to develop policies that align with those realities. History is replete with examples of how humans organize, interact, and relate. And you know what history tells us? Humans tend to be a very predictable species. The emotions, incentives, motives, and values have been pretty much the same for our entire existence. There are certain rules and realities that govern our behavior and lead to certain outcomes. I believe Jesus said the poor will always be with you. To which the liberal says, "hold my beer" or better, "Hold my organic soy latte."
Being a "dreamer" as John Lennon calls himself is not a bad thing. However, when you insist on making your "dreams" a reality, in contention with reality, then you get bad policy. But at least you will feel like you are a better person...
Comments
Post a Comment