So, I touched on this in my previous article, but I believe this is important enough as a concept that it deserves its own article. One thing that seems to separate me from both the right and the left, is that I tend to operate using both views at the same time. I dont really define them as "leftism vs conservatism" in my views, it's more "conflict theory vs structural functionalism", but it amounts to the same divide.
Unlike a lot of people, who seem to find one political theory they like and make it their entire identity, I like to switch back and forth between worldviews, and use them like tools in a toolbox. This is a strength of mine that many ideologues lack and an acquired skill as a result of my education and life path.
On my shoulders are two little voices. You can think of it like the angel vs the devil in cartoons. One voice operates under a very idealistic left wing framework. it looks at the world as it is, and the injustices involves, and it recognizes, gee, we should really do something about this. But then, the other is there thinking about things functionally, thinking, gee, how can we actually accomplish that? And generally speaking, the two little voices balance each other out.
Like, on the issue of work, I'm very anti work. I think we should, in the long term, end poverty and make people more able to be free from the coercion to work. But then the more conservative me kicks in and is like "well how can we actually do that?" Hence why I focus so much not only on my ideals, but the pragmatic applications of my ideals through policies like basic income or reducing the work week gradually over time.
I approach virtually every issue the same way. When I was young, I was a conservative. I thought we already lived in the best possible world, and that a better world wasn't possible. It wasn't that I didnt understand why liberals were outraged at the world as it was, I just thought they were misguided and that their policies would cause more damage than they're worth. If you taxed people to redistribute wealth, people would stop working. If you gave people a minimum wage, it would lead to unemployment, and so on and so forth. The fact is, my conservative ideals were based in functionalism, this is the best we can do and we better do our research if we suggest changing things, if such a thing is even possible.
But then as I became a humanist, I started realizing that hey, the way things are aren't some unchangeable force of nature, and we can implement policies to fix these things. It's just a matter of how. And since I studied political science, I already understood the public policy model and I simply applied it to meet my ends. I would define problems, research solutions, and then try to implement solutions that I wanted to. Which is why I have so much research done in HOW TO DO IT. It's one thing to want something, it's another to actually do it. Left wing ideas are often criticized by the right as not being practical in reality. Heck, even centrist libs use this criticism to stifle any large scale movements to do better. So I spend much of my time not only outlining why we need things, but how to do them too.
As I see it, and this IS the problem of a lot of leftists, they're all feels and no reals. We see this in israel palestine. When I look at the situation, I look at the wide scope of concerns involved, and ultimately, I throw up my hands realizing the situation is screwed, we cant do anything until people are willing to be reasonable and have a solution that doesnt involve killing the other, and that as long as both sides are entrenched in their extremism, no solutions can be made.
Heck, despite being critical of Israel for their actions in Gaza recently (they're going overkill and potentially showing genocidal intent IMO), I still tried to look at what Israel can reasonably do, and I kind of realized much of the status quo emerged as it did in response to the actions of hamas. There is nothing more we can really do, if no one wants to cooperate. I kind of realize that given the logistics of dealing with hamas and planning a war against them, what the inevitable reality of that is....isn't much better than what we're seeing here. Could it be better? Perhaps, and here's the thing, despite Biden being called "Genocide Joe", he's actually been trying to walk them back from the ledge here, encouraging Israel to use smart bombs, caving to that stupid cease fire idea (which solves nothing), etc. I mean, we're doing the best we can. Leftists might be all emotions and feels and not know how to implement productive solutions to problems, but honestly, the ideals are making their way into reality in the ways they can. People just understand there are consequences of not letting Israel fight their war, or refusing to back Israel, and that supporting them, at least publicly, is the best solution we have.
Of course, conservatives have the exact opposite problem. They seem to believe no solution is possible and this is the best we can do. They opposed gay marriage because they believed that it would encourage people to be gay, as if it were a choice. They feared that it would open up a slippery slope to legitimizing pedophilia and bestiality, even though those examples clearly lack the principle of consenting adults. They oppose any liberalization, not because it isn't possible, if anything a lot of conservative ideas are just as idiotic and nonsensical as that of your most head in the clouds ardent leftist, because they think it will bring about the doom of civilization.
Me, I look at things like, well, what harm does it do? None? Well, why are we regulating it? Does it lead to the downfall of society? if so how? And given I have a clear moral imperative to advocate for a better world, and a means to get there, I support doing so.
Or let's do something more complicated. Say, the minimum wage. Liberals point out people can't live on the wages that employers offer. This is true. Conservatives point out that unemployment could go up if we raise wages. This is theoretically true, although research shows its unclear how strongly this connection manifests in reality. Let's assume it is. Clearly, we have a system in which either everyone is employed and can't live on their wages, or not everyone is, but can live on better wages. The question here, assuming this is true, is whats the tradeoff? How much unemployment do we get for more wages?
And then we decide on a policy based on whether it's worth it.
Of course, let's be blunt. I have yet to see solid evidence beyond econ 101 theory suggesting that higher wages, within reason at least, leads to higher unemployment. Historically, it has a negligible impact on unemployment if anything compared to the greater macroeconomic cycle, and the bigger worry is inflation and a potential wage price spiral if wages are raised too much. Of course, any level of minimum wage below triggering a full on wage price spiral is acceptable to me. It seems like the clear utilitarian policy.
Of course, this is also why I went in the direction of basic income to begin with. Understanding the macroeconomic cycle I kind of realized that that whole debate kind of implies a very flawed system, and I looked to fix it. So i started being drawn to UBI. And of course, I had the same issues everyone else did, but would people still work if we did it? Blah blah blah. Of course, these concerns were met with actual data demonstrating that it could work, and it really just came down to funding it properly, which is why i went out of my way to build my own UBI plans. For this idea to get my seal of approval, I had to show that it was feasible. That it would solve poverty and the contradictions within our employment system, without leading to some mass societal downfall. And I believe, that if done correctly, it would accomplish all of these things.
Ideals without a basis in reality is useless. And realism without any ideals lacks vision and just allows the problems of the status quo fester. You need a balance of the two. You need to both want to make society better, while being able to establish practical means to accomplish such an idea. And that's what informs my worldview, it literally balances both of these priorities. I have ideals, but I also seek to accomplish them.
No comments:
Post a Comment