There has always been a struggle between world views. Those who cling to values based on faith, family, and a strong work ethic disapprove of others who have a more idealistic or compassionate or irresponsible outlook. (According to your point of view, you can choose the adjective.) The gap that exists when conservative vs liberal opinions are aired can give balance to life - or can cause strife.
Conservatives are usually 'older and wiser', while liberals tend to be idealistic youths who leap before they look. Of course, this is a simplification that is not always valid. However, it is true that many liberals of the sixties are swelling the ranks of conservatives in the twenty-first century. The reasons for this shift are many.
Fiscal conservatives are often made rather than born. A child whose father rigidly controlled the family finances might eagerly embrace 'buy now pay later'. However, the same person could learn from the consequences of high consumer debt to budget and save. Such a person could frown on governments who spend borrowed money with no idea of how to repay the loans.
Liberals, however, might view present needs as more important than future stability. They want to feed the poor, heal the sick, earn a lot of money with their college education so they can pay high taxes, protect the environment while creating technology to provide new employment opportunities, and still feed off the fat of the land. After all, an ideal society can provide well for all when assets are shared, right?
This kind of thing causes much political unrest in a country. The socialist view that government should take care of the helpless can go too far, some say. If the amount of welfare for a family is more than the breadwinner can earn by working, some see a problem. They also believe that social services offer help too readily. If a person applies for unemployment, the social worker may offer food stamps as well. This angers some taxpayers.
History shows that it is hard for political leaders to balance freedom and compassion, even when these values are paramount. (The records are full of leaders who talked of the common good but who, in reality, sought their own advancement.) People who feel that the government should mandate education of children might truly believe that this is the best way. However, if public policy constrains those who have a different opinion from teaching their own children at home, it smacks of tyranny.
Of course, not everything is fiscal. There are controversies over the role of religion in public life, over what should be taught in schools, over what drives the economy, over what harms the environment, over how to raise children, and more. The structure of family and marriage is under debate. The role of individual countries in a global society is another source of friction.
Conservative vs liberal is probably never going to stop, as viewpoints tend to be very diverse. Although the constant back and forth may get tiring, the alternative - one viewpoint that silences all others - is scary. Think freedom vs tyranny and keep up the attempt to see both sides and seek satisfactory compromises.
Conservatives are usually 'older and wiser', while liberals tend to be idealistic youths who leap before they look. Of course, this is a simplification that is not always valid. However, it is true that many liberals of the sixties are swelling the ranks of conservatives in the twenty-first century. The reasons for this shift are many.
Fiscal conservatives are often made rather than born. A child whose father rigidly controlled the family finances might eagerly embrace 'buy now pay later'. However, the same person could learn from the consequences of high consumer debt to budget and save. Such a person could frown on governments who spend borrowed money with no idea of how to repay the loans.
Liberals, however, might view present needs as more important than future stability. They want to feed the poor, heal the sick, earn a lot of money with their college education so they can pay high taxes, protect the environment while creating technology to provide new employment opportunities, and still feed off the fat of the land. After all, an ideal society can provide well for all when assets are shared, right?
This kind of thing causes much political unrest in a country. The socialist view that government should take care of the helpless can go too far, some say. If the amount of welfare for a family is more than the breadwinner can earn by working, some see a problem. They also believe that social services offer help too readily. If a person applies for unemployment, the social worker may offer food stamps as well. This angers some taxpayers.
History shows that it is hard for political leaders to balance freedom and compassion, even when these values are paramount. (The records are full of leaders who talked of the common good but who, in reality, sought their own advancement.) People who feel that the government should mandate education of children might truly believe that this is the best way. However, if public policy constrains those who have a different opinion from teaching their own children at home, it smacks of tyranny.
Of course, not everything is fiscal. There are controversies over the role of religion in public life, over what should be taught in schools, over what drives the economy, over what harms the environment, over how to raise children, and more. The structure of family and marriage is under debate. The role of individual countries in a global society is another source of friction.
Conservative vs liberal is probably never going to stop, as viewpoints tend to be very diverse. Although the constant back and forth may get tiring, the alternative - one viewpoint that silences all others - is scary. Think freedom vs tyranny and keep up the attempt to see both sides and seek satisfactory compromises.
About the Author:
You can visit the website www.americas-moral-dilemma.com for more helpful information about The Conservative Vs Liberal Struggle
No comments:
Post a Comment