The Red And The Blue

I don't know if I've written this before but I found it among my notes and it resonates. If it sounds familiar, ignore it.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I come from a "blue state." Not surprisingly, virtually all the opinions I hear disparage conservative views and display liberal and intellectual thought. They're all in favor of "entitlements" and are quick to fault all efforts to modify or reevaluate them. They're ideological purists who wouldn't waste time looking at the issues. They've made up their minds and no further thought is necessary. Just some condemning remark – usually expressed as self evident and implying that anyone with a contrary view is evil.

I suspect that in "red states," though the views themselves are the polar opposites of the ones I hear, the approach and the dismissive nature of contrary opinions are the same.

So much for ideological purity and righteous indignation. Neither side will compromise with "wrong-headedness," which is their evaluation of any opinion other than theirs – though there is no need to compromise with those who agree with you. It is more satisfying, and better, to tear down rather than to build up. And if they build me up it is only to let me down.

The majority of the population, however, those whose fate is being judged, are not as single-mined and unyielding. "Half a loaf" is better than nothing at all. And they know that not all the "benefits" awarded them by those who speak in their behalf are as free of problems as claimed. They're more willing to compromise and to reevaluate the existing situation. They are often less focused on entitlements than those who choose to speak, and yell, for them.

But we all feel entitled to something: the rich to a "good life;" the poor to support for their needs (though sometimes the demands made on their behalf are excessive) for food, money, clothing, health care, among other things; non-citizens (legal and illegal) to the rights and benefits of citizens; minorities to recognition; parents to child care and paid work time off; the gender dysphoric to use whatever bathrooms they choose; the incarcerated to better conditions; environmentalists to better conditions for animals and habitats; and everyone to equality.

We all have needs, but who judges them? Who decides what is valid and what wasteful? Who determines whe others are playing the system? In short, who judges right and wrong?

And even when the needs are real and just, who sets priorities, for we may not be able to pay for them all? Everyone will tell you why his needs are more urgent than those of others. It has become common practice for protesters to insist that the demands of whatever group they support be met. So where do we draw the line? We have ethicists who tell us what is right and what is wrong – however they're not always in agreement. But there's another problem as well.

Who pays for the entitlements?

All of what the government does – and in this case I'm discussing entitlements – is paid for by us, the taxpayers. As we raise the cost of entitlements we either raise our own outlay, or the government has to cut back on other services. It's not very complicated. But it never seems to be discussed when someone or some group is making demands. If there is any mention of a source of funding for the program it is that we should tax the one percent, or tax the rich – though it is never quite clear who they are. Many are the entertainment and sports stars we revere but, depending on the definition of "rich," it might include many of what we consider "middle class." And the poor individual who wins the lottery, after years of losing money in it, can be considered rich, which would make his first obligation to support others.

Is that red, blue, purple, or some other color? How would the American color scheme change if we all understood the workings of the system? Our first impulse is to blame those with other points of view than ours. If they're in power it's obviously their fault. If they're out of power the problems stem from what they did in the past and their obstructionism now. We specialize in casting blame, and in negative advertising – rather than in solving problems. Indeed, we're usually not in agreement about what the problems are.

In the past I've frequently ranted about the evil of people, but my concern right now is that people of all colors – black and white, blue and red, rainbow) either have no opinion or one that is fixed. Getting agreement when the disagreements are ideological is all but impossible. Blue and red will remain thoughtless. And irrespective of who wins, the purple will lose.

August 11, 2017