We are on the one hand kind, generous, and sympathetic; on the other, competitive, self-interested, and prone to cruelty.
We are both and all of these things, with divided natures: human, but also animal; social, but also individualistic; empathetic and generous, but also self-interested and jealous.
Neither side is right or wrong, or good or evil; both are essential aspects of human nature. There is nothing we can do about them even if we wanted to.
Capitalism, libertarianism, nationalism, and similar impulses can be thought of as mass analogues to the individualistic side of human nature. We naturally want to succeed, for ourselves and our families (our genes). We band together into clans, states, nations, and apply our individual sense of self-vs.-other to these group identities as well. We want to be in charge of our own destinies, as individuals and as polities. In pursuit of these goals, it's natural to want freedom and liberty. We don't want government, or any kind of larger force, to be telling us — whichever "us" we are talking about — what to do. We want to be free to succeed or fail on our own merits. And so we have invented capitalism, and developed ideologies and policies that support it.
At the same time we want to live in a harmonious world. The natural sympathy characteristic of our social side makes us want others to be happy too — sometimes making us go so far as to feel a need to help the unfortunate who cannot even return the favor. We tend to shrink from cruelty and violence. At the least — assuming we are not sociopaths or Ayn Rand — we find unadulterated selfishness distasteful. And so we have created moral doctrines based on love and harmony; social programs reflecting these doctrines; and organizations dedicated to peace.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Lynette Yetter, author of the novel, Lucy Plays Panpipes for Peace
Bravo Jon!!!!!!!!
I applaud your wise article. Yes, as Daisaku Ikeda says in his many writings, dialog is the sure road to peace. I love how you start out your article talking about our traits as humans. Beings of the same species. A unifying concept.
In SGI Buddhism we often refer to a parable in the Lotus Sutra, of Boddhisatva Never Disparaging. His practice is to bow in reverence to each person, saying that he would never disparage them for they are sure to be a Buddha some day.
Many folks got outraged at him and attacked with stones and whatever else was at hand.
He moved a safe distance away, in order to protect the people from making bad causes of injuring him, and continued to bow in reverence and repeat his mantra of reverence of the Buddha in each person.
Jon, you are brilliant - hitting the nail on the head. Open up and dialog with each other. And listen. The soft power path of peace. It takes courage to listen to someone we disagree with and seek their Buddha within. Huge courage.
2 - handyguy
Nice thoughts, Jon. But my experience on BC has been that a calm, reasonable approach is often either ignored -- or slapped down with snide cynicism and extremist, take-no-prisoners rhetoric. Which of course prompts a response in kind...etc.
3 - Baronius
Jon, conservatives honestly believe that conservatism is better for the disadvantaged. Liberals likewise believe that liberalism is more efficient and successful.
4 - roger nowosielski
". . . conservatives honestly believe that conservatism is better for the disadvantaged."
An odd way of putting things, as though the lot of "disadvantaged" were a kind of indirect by-product of policy. It doesn't speak much for personal involvement or concern.
We might as well be talking about the weather or the price of tea in China.
5 - Dave Nalle
Leaving a derisive blog comment IS talking, Jon.
And while I appreciate the sentiment of this article, it's not clear that you really understand how meaningless the current use of the terms liberal and conservative really are.
Many of those labeled "conservative" are far more liberal than those called "liberal" though they might never admit it. Conversely there are an awful lot of very conservative folks who call themselves "liberral" with little understanding of what the term really means.
People who defend the status quo and support the interests of the ruling elite and advocate restricting freedoms are inherently NOT liberal. Yet that describes our current "liberal" establishment far better than it describes many so-called "conservatives."
Similarly, it's not particularly conservative to want to change the direction the nation has been moving for generations and point it in a very different direction, but that is what many "conservatives" currently advocate.
Your book choice illustrates this dichotomy. Most modern "liberals" would find the ideas of Mill quite threatening, while many modern "conservatives" embrace him. The same is true of most of the liberal icons of that era, including our founding fathers.
Dave
6 - alano
I disagree with an underlying assumption you have built into your article.
First, I suspect you're a liberal - or at least lean to the left. I say this because your underlying assumption makes the left look good. Specifically, you seem to argue that human nature is both selfish and caring - and that our two-party, bi-polar political system reflects that contradictory nature, with the right representing greed and selfishness and the left representing goodwill and love and harmony.
Is this true? Why is it that keeping the money I've earned through voluntary exchange in the marketplace is "selfish" - but someone else coming along and swiping it isn't? How is "greedy" for me to keep the money but acceptable for someone else to take it? Take a look at California, for example, where public sector workers now earn a great deal more on average than private sector workers; where even though the state government is on the verge of bankruptcy, the public workers refuse to take pay cuts or cuts in benefits or cuts in their extremely generous retirement pensions - all while the private sector continues to bleed jobs and money. Aren't the recipients of welfare loot being selfish - esp. when their lifestyles are bankrupting the government?
Let's face it, most people vote Democrat not because they have a big heart and want to help others (people who want to voluntarily help others can give to charity). People vote Democrat because the Democrats are always promising free cash and prizes in exchange for votes. Free health care, free college education, free transportation, free federalized daycare... How is that not an appeal to selfishness?
We've now reached the point in the so-called "welfare state" where it's nearly all out war - with various pressure groups fight each other to gain control of the gov't, and once they gain control doing as much looting (and redistributing) as possible until the public votes them out for some other gang who will proceed to loot as much wealth as possible. Peace, love, and compassion? How you figure?
In my opinion, it's LESS selfish to say that you have what you need and that you don't want to use the physical coercion of the gov't to steal from your neighbors or force doctors to take care of you for free.
So I don't think your assumption that conservatives = selfish and liberals = unselfish is valid.
7 - Arch Conservative
Do I get a free lollipop with this article?
Grow up Jon.
In the real world, as opposed to the blogosphere, actions have consequences. I'm not going to engage in debate, or make any attempt to be civil to those, whatever label they apply to themselves, that support and enable our current tyrannical corporate government in their attempt to dominate every aspect of our lives.
Life isn't a high school debate team. Life isn't theory. It's practice.
I'll leave you with one of my favorite quotes Jon.
"Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions."
GK Chesterton
8 - Jon Sobel
I'm glad at least you, Dave, picked up on my book choice. Taking the time to study Mill might broaden more peoples' perspectives on both "sides."
I use "liberal" and "conservative" in the generally understood U.S. way. I'm not talking about what people call themselves, but underlying principles.
Online discussion (like this) is not, in fact, a very good example of the kind of "talking" I am talking about. Personal talking is what I mean. Sometimes it helps. (Not always.) But it requires courage. Maybe we don't have enough courage, collectively.
9 - Baronius
Alano and Arch both hit on the conservative side of the argument. In the interest of dialogue, let me note how many liberals believe that liberalism is effective. We see BC people who argue that higher tax rates result in stronger economic growth, that health care reform will cut the federal deficit, that an extended hand of friendship is more likely to result in international stability. They argue that green jobs will lead to economic prosperity.
I think Jon's position would make sense to a moderate. They see themselves as moderating the excesses of both capitalism and dependency. On a practical level, we all probably do want a society that pushes forward as much as it can while supporting those who fall behind as much as is prudent.
The thing about people on the left and right is that they see their ideologies as being both practical and merciful. That's the point I'm trying to make.
10 - Dave Nalle
Higher taxation is favored by the American left but it is a decidedly illiberal policy. Liberalism traditionally equates taxation with theft by the force of excessive government.
Dave
11 - handyguy
That is a caricature [as too often is the case with you].
No one 'favors' high taxes. But the public holds these contradictory stances: Don't touch my Social Security. Don't touch Medicare. Don't touch the defense budget. And we hate taxes, except on the rich. [Read the polls.]
That doesn't leave room for a lot of options. If, in addition to those untouchable middle class totems, we are to provide a social safety net, including not letting people go bankrupt because they get sick, we can't do so with lower taxes. So liberals propose a return to the moderate [not extreme] taxation of the 1994-2000 era.
Conservatives, if they had their druthers, would prefer to do away with all entitlement spending and lower taxes to zero. Since that is politically impossible, they are perfectly willing to squeeze the poor and allow health insurance companies to continue ruining people's lives. There is less political cost, and they can say they're standing up for principle.
You can be sure that spending cuts proposed by conservatives are always for social programs, and never for defense.
12 - STM
Of course, there is no reason why capitalism and "socialism" can't co-exist.
If we're talking things like free healthcare, workers' rights, etc.
Looking after your own (countrymen, employees, whatever) AND making a decent quid that gets to be shared out a bit more evenly is not a mutually exclusive concept.
13 - Arch Conservative
"No one 'favors' high taxes."
No they just never fail to vote for politicians that advocate higher taxes.
Based on recent history it's obvious that neither party in DC has the slightest desire to exhibit fiscal common sense.
Aside from taxes we as a nation have grown so much more greedy and so much less self sufficient than previous generations. An entitlement mentality currently pervades our society like a cancer and yes it is the left that feeds this unholy beast.
The entire appeal of the Dem party is to promise people stuff for free creating a false sense of security. The promise of absolution of all personal responsibility is irresistable to the stupid, lazy and apathetic.
Handy bemoans that budget cuts of his precious social welfare programs....
But the last time I checked it went:
"Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime. "
Not
"Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, but sign him up for welfare, keep him a helpless dependent and you can pay for his fish for the rest of his life."
14 - zingzing
archie: "The entire appeal of the Dem party is to promise people stuff for free."
well, there's other stuff like not bombing the shit out of anything that moves and then torturing what's left behind, but you know... the free stuff is pretty cool. where's my free stuff? what's the free stuff we were supposed to get again?
if you don't bother to find out why we do the things we do, how do you expect to argue us out of doing those things? no, it's not free stuff and welfare that dems want. get that silly-ass notion out of you head.
15 - handyguy
Even if Newt Gingrich or Sarah Palin were president, and appointed Michelle Bachmann Secy. of Health and Human Services and Ron Paul Secy of Treasury [I'm gagging as I type this] --
They still wouldn't dare touch Social Security, Medicare or the Pentagon budget. Their hands would be just about as tied regarding taxing and spending decisions as any Democrat's.
And since they would inevitably cut taxes and increase defense spending, the deficit would continue to loom over us.
16 - Baronius
OK, is there anywhere we can go with this thread? The left and right can bash each other some more, but is there any middle ground? I'm not saying we all become moderates, and I'm not talking about teaming up for birther-bashing (as much fun as that is). I'm just wondering if there's any progress that can be made.
17 - Arch Conservative
Well Baronius, maybe we can all get together and go kick Fred Phelp's ass...or maybe Bernie Madoff's. I don't care how old either of these guys are, they're both just begging to be pushed down a long flight of stairs.
18 - Baronius
Arch, I was trying to keep things non-partisan, and you go talking about beating up Democrats.
19 - handyguy
Here's some food for thought, lyrics from the wonderful song "Wasteland of the Free" by Iris Dement
We got preachers dealing in politics and diamond mines
and their speech is growing increasingly unkind
They say they are Christ's disciples
but they don't look like Jesus to me
and it feels like I am living in the wasteland of the free
We got politicians running races on corporate cash
Now don't tell me they don't turn around and kiss them peoples' ass
You may call me old-fashioned
but that don't fit my picture of a true democracy
and it feels like I am living in the wasteland of the free
We got CEO's making two hundred times the workers' pay
but they'll fight like hell against raising the minimum wage
and If you don't like it, mister, they'll ship your job
to some third-world country 'cross the sea
and it feels like I am living in the wasteland of the free
where the poor have now become the enemy
Let's blame our troubles on the weak ones
Sounds like some kind of Hitler remedy
Living in the wasteland of the free
We got high-school kids running 'round in Calvin Klein and Guess
who cannot pass a sixth-grade written test
but if you ask them, they can tell you
the name of every crotch on MTV
and it feels like I am living in the wasteland of the free
We kill for oil, then we throw a party when we win
Some guy refuses to fight, and we call THAT the sin
but he's standing up for what he believes in
and that seems pretty damned American to me
and it feels like I am living in the wasteland of the free
Even more powerful when she sings it.
20 - Arch Conservative
Are Madoff and Phelps both Democrats?
I was not aware of that when I wrote my last post.
21 - Baronius
I was just having fun with you, Arch. But both of them are Dems.
I'm like a juvenile delinquent. I got bored waiting around, so I started a fire.
22 - handyguy
Your mischievous 'outing' of Philip Berg and Fred Phelps as Dems may be amusing [at least to you], but it says nothing about the Democratic Party. I'm sure if we dug a little we could find serial killers and child molesters, present and past, affiliated with both parties. [And most major religions.]
23 - Baronius
Handy, it was completely inappropriate for me to bring that up on a "let's all just get along" thread. I just got tired of waiting around for suggestions on how we can get along better. I'd love to figure out how. The irony was just too much for me.
Now that we're talking, how do we get along better?
24 - zingzing
calling madoff a democrat is fairly naive. yeah, he gave them money, but they were the ones in power in nyc. he was about making money, and the dems made it easier for him. not because of their policies, but because of the relationships he had formed. it's all about the money. he gave to the republicans when he saw fit.
25 - Baronius
Zing, would you have provided the same caveat if we were talking about Enron and the Texas GOP?