When a person becomes opinionated, they tend to lose empathy for the concerns of the opposing viewpoint. It is as if in their mind, they have decided their concerns are important enough that they can ignore the concerns of the other side. Thus, pro-choicers are concerned about government interference in our private lives more than the theoretical personhood of a fetus, and pro-lifers are more concerned with respect for human life than the vague threat of government outlawing actions based on personal conviction.
It seems clear to me that both concerns are valid, and that both sides will acknowledge that both concerns are valid - but in our rush for power, we deem it necessary to ignore one concern in favor of the other. We see adamancy and simplistic slogans as the path to victory - that without being a hard-liner, we will not be perceived as strong, and therefore will not win. This is a philosophy based on winning (and forcing a vast number of people to lose and be deprived of what they want), rather than cooperation and understanding.
Unfortunately, we have a president today focused on winning rather than on cooperation, on a certain subset winning rather than everyone winning, so the problem is exacerbated. However, I think that is a symptom rather than the problem. Long before the election, we showed the signs of moving towards more towards conflict and war than towards understanding and compromise.
What is the cause of this? Is there not a ton of evidence against the efficacy of conflict? Is there truly a greater tendency towards polarization and intolerance today than earlier, or has it always been this way?
No comments:
Post a Comment