Posted March 1st, 2012
The rabid, raving “liberals” look at the rabid, raving “conservatives” and point their finger*, saying “They think this and that. They are waging a ‘war on (fill in the blank)’.”
The rabid, raving “conservatives” look at the rabid, raving “liberals” and say the same thing back.
Everyone is always accusing each other of “waging a war” on somebody. Does no one else see what I see? That they’re mirror images of each other? That making an accusation of “waging a war on me” is an act of aggression. Pointing your finger and saying “they are ruining America (those evil people)” is a pretty evil thing to say.
Has everyone forgotten how to listen? Maybe we’re all stuck in our filter-bubbles and don’t even know what we sound like.
One of the wisest things I ever heard is “Seek first to understand, then to be understood.” Every time you think or say a generalization like “they think this or that, so they are (stupid/evil/etc)” you are adding fuel to the fire. Seek first to understand, then to be understood.
Republicans are saying that requiring employers to cover birth control prescriptions is an “anti-conscience mandate… the latest assault on liberty Obamacare has ushered in,” and will bring America to “a point of no return — beyond which individuals will be forever subsumed to the will of the state.” The author (from the Heritage Foundation) accuses “Obamacare” of being an “assault on liberty,” as if to say that Democrats hate freedom. Seriously, have you thought that through? Human beings like freedom. It doesn’t make sense to say they don’t. Dig a little deeper into their motives.
Democrats say things like “They aren’t interested in freedom of religion. Otherwise they’d stop trying to pass religiously motivated laws that impose one group’s ‘moral’ beliefs on everyone else.” Again, how can you accuse an entire group that represents about half of America as not being interested in freedom of religion (and by inference, accuse them of lying about their motivations)?
When will either party (and by party, I mean people like you and me that have these arguments with friends/acquaintances/strangers at the bar) try to understand the other’s point of view? Please keep in mind, to “understand” a point of view is quite different than to “agree” with it.
The way I see it, it’s a fair argument on either side, if put forth with a level head. One side sees it as forcing religious employers to go against their religion by paying for something they believe is a sin. That’s the “attack against freedom.” The other side sees the “Blunt amendment” as not allowing people to make personal decisions about which medications, whatever the purpose, to use their insurance policy for. That’s the “attack against freedom.” They are mirror images of each other.
There are many ways we can talk about this. Why can’t we just have a debate about the merits of each side’s point of view? This is actually such an interesting topic. In a free world, where we are all accepting of each other, and “as long as you don’t hurt anyone else, do what you like,” what happens when two conflicting views each would hurt the other? Do we default to making no law where making one would restrict one party’s freedom but enhance the other’s freedom? Or do we default to making a law to protect one party’s freedom, where it would restrict the other’s? How do we make the call?
Maybe based on monetary considerations. I don’t know. But that’s the argument/debate/conversation I want to have. Fuck all this “you’re stupid! you’re evil! you’re a freedom-hater!” bullshit. I got bored of that argument in kindergarten.
* here I mean “point the finger” not in the “blame” sense, but in the “us vs. them” sense. I often see it as a distancing gesture, not necessarily an accusatory one.