Political Perceptions, Left and Right.

"It's not what you look at that matters, it's what you see."   Henry David Thoreau


Have you ever had a discussion with someone in which it just seemed like that person just couldn't grasp the point you were trying to make?  It could have been on a deep subject, or something quite simple, but at the end of the conversation it seemed as if nothing penetrated the mind of the person you were speaking to?  It was not that you were speaking a different language to him/her but perhaps your perceptions of reality were so different that no points of commonality could be found.

Case in point, a hypothetical conversation between a person on the political/cultural right and one on the left.  In today's America it is quite apparent that meaningful conversation has become very difficult.  Of course I am attempting to access the minds of people here, just as I would in developing a character for one of my novels (check link to works below, you might enjoy conservative-based fiction), however, one must ask if this explains the great divide today.

Let's examine, not merely issues, but ideological frameworks at play:

Globalization v. national sovereignty.  People with more traditional views tend to recognize that the USA must work with other nations and alliances, but they also feel that our laws, rights, and national outlook should absolutely be rooted in a more local approach (powers vested in communities, then state and then national bodies).  Cooperation with allies and trading partners is one thing, but giving up any power to govern to anyone outside the USA would be unthinkable.

On the other hand, many on the left are idealistic towards phasing out national borders and merging our systems of planning and governance with regional and world institutions. They feel that national interests must fade away and they have incredible trust of government, even trans-national government organizations.  Perhaps they believe if everyone comes together then it will usher in an era of world peace; thus, they look to organizations like the EU and hope for a day when all the borders of Europe will disappear and government is seated in Brussels. They look forward to such a system in the Americas as well. Eventually, they see a song like John Lennon's "Imagine" as a hoped-for ideal.

Government authority. As I stated above, the left trusts government. People who are more on the traditional side of politics do not.  They admire our system of divided powers, checks and balances, which makes creating new laws difficult.  That was the intention of the Founding Fathers - make sure that a momentary eruption of mass hysteria over an issue did not lead to adoption of bad laws, laws that might take away the rights of the people.  Traditionalists do not look upon politicians as dedicated public servants out to create a better world. They see the need to limit government because politicians and special interests are out to maximize their power and their ability to concentrate power must be held in check.

People on the left, while they may be highly critical of a particular politician they do not like, still have faith in government as a whole. Most have never considered the ideas of Plato or B.F. Skinner, but they have faith in the sort of centralized planning of the elite they promoted. They do not trust the individual to make proper choices.  So even though they promote the general concept of democracy they tend to get really upset when voting does not go their way.  They immediately jump to conclusions such as interference and manipulation (traditionally from big business, but nowadays that has been replaced with Russians) or that the people are racist or ignorant.  So rather than reflect on whether their candidates or agenda are what people want they double-down as their mindset is confirmed that people cannot be trusted. Therefore their faith in a more central authority is also confirmed. You gotta control those masses, after all.

Conformity.   Face it, any study of psychology will demonstrate that people do not like to be forced to conform.  And traditional conservatives are notorious for questioning authority - the people who came to the USA, in large part, were escaping systems that demanded submission to the state.  Traditionalists see conformity as stifling of creativity, and that the state has no right to force people (overtly through threat of violence, or covertly through manipulating media or public education) to adopt a particular way of thinking about religion, politics or anything else.

The more left-of-center person may come across as a free thinker, but for reasons already explained, they see a need for people to be taught more "correct" ways of thinking and behaving. Imagine that grade school teacher you had who always punished the class for misbehavior of one student, or who told students they could not go out to recess if they did not finish their vegetables served for lunch, for your own good, of course.  The left feels that society benefits from a top-down approach to life.  Why not teach people the proper ways to speak, how to dress for a costume party, how to see sex and sexuality or even how to think?  The collective is what is important and while changing people may be difficult it is the responsibility of the state to determine what must be altered in people and then to do it.

Family. Until recent decades there was a general consensus on what family was - and it did not matter if one was on the right or left of the socio/political spectrum. However, in the late 1960s a fork appeared in the proverbial road; take one path and maintain the traditional ideal of people abstaining from sex, finding someone to marry, and making children, or another path that would lead to an infinite number of possibilities.  Today we see where that has evolved.  Conservatives hold onto the view that the family is ordained of God, and that it is essential to the preservation of a strong nation.

The left feels that the family, as defined by tradition, is a manifestation of an oppressive patriarchal order that keeps women down. So even if a woman says she wants to get married and have a family the left feels she has been brainwashed and needs to be liberated from such gender-based chains.  And if she resists and does indeed have children the left feels that the state needs to insure those kids are "taught" so that they don't make the same mistake.  In fairness, many people on the left do indeed get married in a traditional sense, but they quite often seem apologetic for clinging to tradition as opposed to exploring different alternatives, and often they don't see having children as an essential part of marriage.  Many choose to not have kids, or only have one as opposed to more traditional couples who are more likely to want children.

We could go on with other examples but let's just take the latter ideological construct on families and apply it to abortion.  First, the concept of is the child in the womb a child or not is quite biological but most arguments between pro-life and pro-choice people are not dominated by such examinations.  Instead the debates will pit people who feel children are a blessing from God, or at the very least to be welcomed, against those who see the birth of a child in the context of limiting a woman's social or economic advancement.  Rarely is any middle-ground concensus possible because each person is relying on their personal worldview and the emotions that will determine the verbal exchange will be closely tied to that.  So it is not hard to see why exchanges can be so heated, with no room for compromise.

So overall the influences of social media will probably cause any sort of middle ground to evaporate.  We will gravitate to those who see the world as we do and that will also mean seeing those who don't as opponents.  Did Donald Trump start this? No he didn't.  Can he solve it? That is doubtful.  While segregation in the past was often based on race or economic status the new segregation will be more a function of the mind, where we will increasingly become uncomfortable with opposing views and do our best to wall ourselves off from others.  Such a climate may not remain peaceful in the long-run if the media continues to fuel negativity and fragmentation, sad to say.

Works:
So what might life had been like 3 months before the Flood of Noah?   https://www.amazon.com/Destiny-Our-Past-Michael-Cross-ebook/dp/B01MY4WASN

Like thrillers about secret societies and power?   https://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Conscience-Price-Power-5/dp/1612967701https://www.amazon.com/Freedom-Conscience-Price-Power-5/dp/1612967701