I'd Rather Fight than Switch!

Passions are high, but solutions are rare, whether the subject is terrorism, health care, public education, the arts, personal morality or the role of government in any or all of the above; whether the concern is for the needs of the many versus the needs of the one; whether the question relates to the causes of poverty or the degree to which “the market” should be free or regulated.

It’s just easier to call somebody a liberal (or a conservative or  radical or wacko or whatever) and point fingers of blame, than to set aside personal or party ideology and engage in effective problem solving and collaboration.

Remember the cigarette ad from the 60s? "I'd rather fight than switch!"

The word, ‘paranoia’ is being tossed around a lot these days. From where I sit, however, the dominant cultural reaction looks less like paranoia and more like scapegoating. The aim is to redirect responsibility and accountability. As a result, whatever it’s called, not only are solutions rare, but so, also, are viable initiatives for new directions.

The recent health care program presented by the Republicans was said to have been a slipshod, hastily-thrown-together mish-mash that was no better—perhaps worse—than the Affordable Care Act it was intended to replace. Some even said it was primarily an act of revenge against Liberals.

I wasn’t there, and therefore don’t have first-hand knowledge[1]; however, what came across in the creation of both the Affordable Care Act and the American Health Care Act was the absence of any attempt at bi-partisan collaboration. Neither party acknowledged validity in the other party’s input, and each party engaged in efforts designed solely to undermine whatever the other party initiated.

The result is two “better than nothing” health care plans, neither of which is sufficiently comprehensive. Nobody’s happy; and most are angry and scapegoating (again, the act of redirecting responsibility and accountability.

Remember your childhood sibling squabbles: “It’s your fault!”

What we have here is a collision of values! On the one hand, conservatives believe “That government is best that governs least”[2] and attempt to enact that dictum through legislation. On the other hand, while I don’t think anyone really disagrees with the dictum, liberals tend to focus more on specific human needs that go unattended and see government involvement as the only viable alternative at a given moment.

Both perspectives are valid; indeed, most issues are both/and, rather than either/or, concerns. What is missing is a workable strategy of application—a strategy to reduce government involvement while making “other arrangements” for meeting human need. Theories and opinions abound. Passions are high. But workable strategies are rare.

Eliminating welfare fraud and dependence are valid, worthy goals; but going “cold turkey” destroys people, especially those who are most vulnerable and who, in reality, constitute a much larger population than those who manipulate and abuse the system.

Like everyone else, I have strengths and weaknesses. Among my strengths are training in group dynamics and conflict resolution. Whenever I begin any conflict resolution, whether it’s a marital conflict, a conflict between teachers and administration, or a church fight, I always open with a question: “Do you want to resolve the issue between you, or do you just want to win the fight?”

Maybe it’s just me; but, in my observation it seems obvious how most politically-involved people would answer.

It’s beyond sad. It’s tragic and dangerous.

That’s the way I see it through the Flawed Glass that is my world view.

Together in the Walk,

Jim

---

[1] Nor am I privy to any other person’s mind; therefore, I am unable to judge a person’s intentions or motivations. I am, however, relatively capable of reading people’s behavior, body language, voice inflection, choice of vocabulary, etc., all of which give credible evidence into people’s intentions and motivations. Even so, it’s a tangled web of assumption when we presume to judge another’s mind.

[2] Henry David Thoreau opened his pamphlet, “Civil Disobedience” with this phrase. It has been attributed to Thomas Jefferson, although it is not found in any of his writings. (Source: http://eyler.freeservers.com/JeffPers/jefpco09.htm )