![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
When Bush was elected, I was mostly worried about the religious and moral issues that the new admistration would fuck up. The corporate factor was on my mind, but it didn't concern me quite as much.
Lately I've been more and more worried about it. You can imagine how corporations take advantage of weaker countries who can't fight back. Guess what happens when they've taken over those weaker countries, and WE are suddenly the countries with little leverage to fight with?
Lets see... you design plants that when they go to seed, those seeds are not viable? Kick ass! Farmers won't be able to set part of the crop aside for next year's planting. They'll have to buy from you! Congratulations! Wait a minute. What farmer in his right mind would buy such a product? I'll tell you which one. The one with no choice. Maybe he lives in some little country in Africa where big corporations like Monsanto are gaining an tight hold on markets by dealing directly with corrupt governments?
It's funny how conservatives believe in the domino effect as it applies to communist rule in third world countries, but not corporate rule.
You know what else bugs me? How the conservative viewpoint is that everyone should take responsibility for his own actions. Like how if you injure yourself using a product, it was your own fault. But corporations don't have to take resposibility for *their* own actions. Like injuring their employees. "Hey, we didn't know that stuff was toxic. Nobody died in OUR tests." Or cleaning up an oil spill. "Ooops, we couldn't possibly get all that cleaned up." Or filing bankruptcy. "Hey, we're going to try this again, and we need money. You're out of luck." Or giving the CEO's huge salaries and stock options and bonuses, when their employees' wages are frozen, or worse. Oh wait, that's a different issue: Greed. Um... I guess that's not a different issue after all.
I guess the main difference between liberal and conservative principles is that liberals *have* principles.
Lately I've been more and more worried about it. You can imagine how corporations take advantage of weaker countries who can't fight back. Guess what happens when they've taken over those weaker countries, and WE are suddenly the countries with little leverage to fight with?
Lets see... you design plants that when they go to seed, those seeds are not viable? Kick ass! Farmers won't be able to set part of the crop aside for next year's planting. They'll have to buy from you! Congratulations! Wait a minute. What farmer in his right mind would buy such a product? I'll tell you which one. The one with no choice. Maybe he lives in some little country in Africa where big corporations like Monsanto are gaining an tight hold on markets by dealing directly with corrupt governments?
It's funny how conservatives believe in the domino effect as it applies to communist rule in third world countries, but not corporate rule.
You know what else bugs me? How the conservative viewpoint is that everyone should take responsibility for his own actions. Like how if you injure yourself using a product, it was your own fault. But corporations don't have to take resposibility for *their* own actions. Like injuring their employees. "Hey, we didn't know that stuff was toxic. Nobody died in OUR tests." Or cleaning up an oil spill. "Ooops, we couldn't possibly get all that cleaned up." Or filing bankruptcy. "Hey, we're going to try this again, and we need money. You're out of luck." Or giving the CEO's huge salaries and stock options and bonuses, when their employees' wages are frozen, or worse. Oh wait, that's a different issue: Greed. Um... I guess that's not a different issue after all.
I guess the main difference between liberal and conservative principles is that liberals *have* principles.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2001-02-10 05:38 pm (UTC)From:http://www.livejournal.com/talkread.bml?itemid=1638358 (http://www.livejournal.com/talkread.bml?itemid=1638358)
This isn't a slam; it's a position statement.
Date: 2001-02-10 06:09 pm (UTC)From:And so my question is this: what is the benefit to us all in continuing to say overgeneralized things about each other? As a liberal, who passionately believes in your principles, what contribution do you make towards those principles by characterizing a third or so of the population as unprincipled? This is why Acedia tends to piss me off, too. The world I want to live in is one in which I don't dismiss the beliefs and values of a huge chunk of the population. I don't really want to save the world so that only those who believe as I do and who see as I do can thrive in it. I want to be able to see the world from the viewpoint of people I disagree with as much as those with whom I agree. Because otherwise, there will always be hatred and distrust and ignorance, and those are the things, more than anything else at all, that I, as a liberal, want to eradicate from the world.
If you are angry, then you have a choice of responses. You can continue to be angry and work towards shutting down the viewpoints of people who disagree with you. This will, of course, create more tension and eventually lead to violence and hatred.
Or you can step aside completely for a moment and try to see things from points of view diametrically opposed from you. It's too simplistic to dismiss conservatives as money-driven and greedy and uncaring and unprincipled. Life is NEVER that simple, and by taking the short-sighted view, you only marginalize yourself from the discussion; you only put yourself outside of solution-enhancing possibility.
The fact is that liberals are not going to suddenly win, just as conservatives are not going to suddenly win. There will never be any lasting solution to any of the problems facing our society unless people on all sides of these issues learn to have empathy for each other and learn to sit down and listen and talk to each other. There is simply no other way to achieve progress, and it has to start with each person, with each interaction, with each statement, with each discussion, with each thought.
thank you
Date: 2001-02-10 08:31 pm (UTC)From:I appreciate your taking the time to discuss this further. I try doing that very often, but I never seem to get very far. It seems that all of those conservatives are so shortsighted that it is useless to try to get them to see my point of view. But I suppose they say that about us.
I always hope that people don't focus on the anger, but the issues. I hope that the conservatives who read this don't respond with, "we're not greedy, you shithead!" but try to find the reasons we think that. I think it is very important to find out why our opponents feel the way they do.
(A few weeks ago, I managed to raise the ire of Ana, Seren and Fledermaus by posing as a bible thumping pro-lifer. I did this to try to bring home the reality that the "enemy" doesn't fight on the same principles that we do. All your arguments are pointless, if your opponent doesn't believe what you think he does.)
Dismissing conservatives as money-driven and greedy and uncaring and unprincipled, does not necessarilly marginalize me, but it does compartmentalize the discussion. This can be looked at in two ways. It may not help much in a grey world - it reduces the equation to black and white. On the other hand, it can make part of the problem clear - make it into bite sized bits.
Neither side is going to suddenly win, because there are no sides. It is not "us vs. them" it is "us vs. us."
p.s. I think one of my strongest talents is finding the "other" point of view.
p.p.s. sorry if I'm rambling today. I'm sick.
Re: thank you
Date: 2001-02-10 10:54 pm (UTC)From:On another note, I actually have a lot of empathy for those who express political viewpoints other than mine. However, if I don't get even a semblance of said empathy in return, or if I get leaps of logic or twisting of my words or downright irrationality in return, I'm not about to spin my wheels or waste my time with someone who simply wants to express his/her opionion, repeatedly, without really trying to understand or comprehend my viewpoint. So what if I understand where that person is coming from if that person doesn't give a shit about where I'm coming from? Attempting dialogue with that kind of person is just a waste of time and energy. It's worse than a waste, it can be downright depleting. And since I'm a liberal Democrat, I don't believe that the solution to our differences is for everyone to become centrist, even though centrists certainly believe that's the answer.
Some liberal Democrats who become so enamored with empathizing with ultra-conservative Republicans and Libertarians seem to have become tougher on Democratic political leaders and lighter on other party's political leaders. They empathize so much with the right that they forgive them their trespasses, even while unable to forgive such trespasses by the left. It seems to me that by doing so they may diminish their own political ideals. It's definitely ok to have strong political opinions and to speak your political truth. It's great if you can engage in real dialogue (without resorting to denigrating an entire group of people) with those who disagree with you. But that's often not possible, even if through no fault of your own.
And now am I rambling? I don't have the excuse of being sick, rather I've got a bit of time to try to express myself. Thanks, I'm done for now.
Re: thank you
Date: 2001-02-11 06:48 am (UTC)From:I'm not centrist. I'm actually quite liberal, and I'm not willing to compromise on several issues, for instance: women's rights, gay rights, animal rights, censorship. In fact, in the way I live my life (I don't drive, I generally only work for nonprofit organizations, I boycott nearly every corporation, I am poor by choice, etc.), some would say that I'm quite radically liberal.
I guess I'd make a distinction between compromising in one's life and values and compromising in a _discussion_.
I've also found that the more I learn, the more I'm convinced that we are _all_ victims of propaganda. The people in power have a vested interest in simplifying the liberal/conservative dichotomy, and while we all stake our ground and beat each other over the head with our assertions, both democrats and republicans in the government continue to do whatever the hell they want, to the detriment of the environment and to people living all over the world.
Re: thank you
Date: 2001-02-11 09:38 am (UTC)From:And I understand the value of compromising in a discussion. I just don't think it's necessary or even healthy to always compromise more than the person with whom you're in dialogue. If and when that happens, and if it happens consistently, it does seem to me to be an erosion of your values.
And I feel strongly that too many people are harder on their own political party leadership. Of course our party leaders should be held accountable, but that doesn't mean they should be judged more harshly for blunders than leaders of other political parties. I think a big problem with the last campaign was that people (probably mostly Democrats) consistently lowered their expectations of Bush while raising their expectations of Gore. Also, some people simply believed what they wanted to believe (probably mostly Republicans and Libertarians), e.g., Gore is not an intelligent person. It seems to me we need to fight blatant bullshit like that.
Oh, and another problem is that there are social issues that transcend politics but get all murky in religious/philosophical/emotional issues. Abortion is the prime example. Is it possible to compromise in a discussion with a bible-thumper about abortion? If you compromise and s/he doesn't, what's gained by doing so?
I agree with your last paragraph in its entirety. :)
Re: thank you
Date: 2001-02-11 01:20 pm (UTC)From:Depends. Sometimes it helps to pick one's battles. And it's always important to keep in mind one's long term goals. By gaining the respect of someone who I disagree with, am I making it more likely that that person will listen to my viewpoint when it really matters?
There's an art to persuasion.
______
Anyway, one of the most important values I have (and I consider it perhaps the prime liberal value) is that discussion and mediation is a better way to solve problems than violence and hatred. Given my ability with words, I could probably out-argue anyone, but at what cost? I try not to see an argument in terms of "winner" and "loser," because I find reprehensible the whole idea of a zero sum game. Our society thrives on the idea that one person must win at the expense of another person, and I believe that every single time we contribute to the perpetuation of such a thing, we all suffer.
Re: thank you
Date: 2001-02-12 01:47 pm (UTC)From:Re: thank you
Date: 2001-02-13 11:06 am (UTC)From:Since I never see any complex issue as having a solution, I try to make others see the issues as complex. Weird, I know, but too many people think things are black and white, and are too set in their own arguments to notice oppposing viewpoints. I just want them to think.
Re: thank you
Date: 2001-02-13 11:11 am (UTC)From:Re: thank you
Date: 2001-02-13 01:37 pm (UTC)From:I'm also not sure "compromise" (a word I admittedly used first) is really the best word for what I'm trying to describe. It's not really that I compromise my position in an argument; it's more as if I am empathic and work to understand the other person's point of view. Often (if not always) understanding the person's point of view helps me to find weaknesses or inconsistencies in their argument, which allows me to better persuade them to think more broadly. In the process, though, I have to broaden my own thinking, and sometimes my positions have changed due to the influence of another person's point of view.
Anyway, since there's no possibility whatsoever that I'm suddenly going to become a misogynist or a racist or a homophobe or a murderer of animals or a religious person, it can't possibly hurt me to consider another person's point of view. My convictions are strong enough that I don't have to be overly defensive against them.
Also, you have to remember something: if I'm having a conversation with you about, say, the environment, I don't have to be persuasive at all; we probably agree on pretty much everything. However, if I'm going to have a conversation with someone who doesn't value the environment, I have a choice: I can talk til I'm blue in the face, expressing my beliefs and not caring at all whether or not the other person is persuaded. Or I can take an entirely different approach and find common ground with the person so that I can gain her/his trust and respect so that at least _some_ of the things I say are taken seriously. If my _ultimate_ goal is to help the environment, then I MUST persuade those with whom I disagree. Winning an argument, or drawing a line in the sand, is sometimes necessary, but if the end result of such a tactic is further degradation of the environment, then my victory is hollow. Given the severity of the environmental nightmare in this world, one of the worst things we can do, I believe, is further polarize the issue. If everyone views everyone else as an extremist, very little progress will be made. And, most importantly, the progress that does occur will be short term progress. Any long term solution to the environmental problems facing this world (and any long term solution to a variety of other types of problems) will absolutely require new ways of thinking, new ways of arguing, and new ways of forming coalitions between people who have traditionally hated each other.
I look at it this way: there is more than one way to be an extremist. Typically, extremists end up marginalizing themselves. I believe this is self-defeating, and I believe there are better ways to further one's convictions.
Re: thank you
Date: 2001-02-13 01:51 pm (UTC)From:Also, I definitely envy you the time that is necessary to be so thoughtful in discourse. In fact, I wanted to make this a longer post but I can't - it's time to pick up my daughter at school!
Hopefully I can return to this discourse.
~Seren
me too!
Date: 2001-02-13 02:43 pm (UTC)From:Hopefully I can return to this discourse.
-later, dudes
Re: thank you
Date: 2001-02-13 04:08 pm (UTC)From:I take it back
Date: 2001-02-14 10:46 am (UTC)From: