View of Humanity Explains Political Divide

It may not exactly be an epiphany but the current political divide has become much clearer for me in recent years. I have grown weary of hyperbole and extreme statements made on both sides and have instead sought out higher ground to gain a better perspective.

I have attempted to avoid flinging wild accusations at my counterparts on the left and have accepted that their motivations are not necessarily less than sincere.  The dilemma was to understand how such polar opposite philosophies can exist within the same reality.

Over time, it occurred to me that the framework of how we see the world and our place in it must be a key factor in shaping our worldview or lack thereof. It then became logical that our view of humanity likely was a primary influence on the spiritual, social and political views we adopt and develop throughout our lives.

For one to suppose that positions of power and the populace can ensure any significant degree of fairness and equity, one must believe in the intrinsic goodness of mankind. While the left will quickly point out corporate corruption and the like, they consistently contend that similar evils will not occur if like-minded people directed society. That is, electing people with good intentions will solve many of our problems.

We need to look no further than all of human history to dispel this theory as those of all views have committed atrocities both great and small. Some may consider it noble to dream of an idyllic society where we all serve each other equally but it simply cannot exist given man’s propensity to promote himself.

An underlying foundational premise of conservatism is that all people are prone to serve self. That is people of all persuasions, left and right and not just those opposed to our collective views. The concept of a small limited government is a by-product of understanding that too much accumulated power in any one entity will likely yield attempts to gain more power. This can begin as simple bureaucracy and go all the way to forms of tyranny and oppression. Conservatives are often accused of romanticizing American history but scars within our past only make the case further that people are fallen beings.

The idea of fallen mankind does have roots in the Judeo-Christian heritage and did play a large role in the founding of this country. As the foundation to Christianity, the Bible paints a consistent picture throughout the old and new testaments that every man and woman is born with a sin nature. We are by nature, degenerate and apt to sin. This is the very reason the gospel (good news) exists. It gives mankind the opportunity to reconcile with God through the substitutionary atonement of Jesus Christ.

A common phrase in today’s lexicon states that “religion has killed more people and started more wars than anything”. Some experts have debunked this theory with sound historical accounts but while many point to the crusades and inquisitions, it is actually the marriage of politics to absolute power that is largely responsible for untold deaths throughout the ages. The twentieth century alone saw tens of millions killed from the extremes of fascism in Hitler’s Germany to the socialist communism of leaders like Stalin, Mao Zedong and Pol Pot. Where we do have accounts of religion being the motivating factor, its cause remains linked to the delegated or confiscated power of the leader(s). Lord Acton accurately summed this up with his famous quote “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely…”

The current American psyche appears to be leading to a more autonomous federal government. Our fiscal and social policy is being guided by a sense of entitlement as well as an overall apathy towards anything political. A large portion of the electorate seems content to willingly or unwillingly grant more and more power to the government to act on their behalf. They may not however, understand that power is not drawn from an infinite well and that when power is gained on one side, there is an equal but opposite reduction in power on the other side. America is headed down a path of less power to the people.

In terms of political affiliation, I am quite certain another cycle will shift and Republicans will gain majorities again but I fear true conservatism may be waning. In an era that grows more narcissistic and self-centered, modern liberalism becomes a strong attraction and in effect becomes the easy option. It offers platitudes of helping the less fortunate by only requiring more of those who are at the top and labeling it fairness. Moral absolutes are being replaced by relativism. Tolerance and open-mindedness are heralded while at the same time, ridiculing those with differing viewpoints. Key issues are routinely being argued in sound bites and largely from emotional perspectives.      

On the other hand, conservatism tends to be the much harder choice. While both the left and right may endorse hard work and achievement, conservatives embrace the principle of individual responsibility that requires risk as part of the formula. Without risk, there can be no substantial success. This is the fuel that fires a mutually beneficial private sector that in return offers opportunity to others to pursue similar results.  Attempts to guarantee success by the public sector often directly erode a self-sufficient populace and by our natural human tendency, often lead to some form of dependence which only empowers the State.

How then, do we deal with those that are less successful by circumstance or their own doing? The left believe it is a governmental obligation to bridge gaps like economic disparity but human nature will never allow a remedy by handouts. While possible good intentions exist, state-provided benefits cannot have the effect that real charity does. Charity is unlike government aid in that it is a responsive sacrifice initiated by the giver when they see a need. Polling data over the last 25 years has consistently indicated that conservatives on average give far more liberally to charitable causes than does the left. This should not surprise true conservatives as they understand the hierarchy of individual responsibility also includes supporting those whom they can in their social circles and communities. Giving back is a natural outcome by individuals who practice self-denial in at least some aspect of their lives whether it be morally, fiscally or socially.

Left to our own devices, basic human tendencies will often lead us to selfishness and that has potential to lead to evil. Mental illness is routinely pointed to as the cause for violence like murder and rape, but it is actually born of extreme self-centeredness. Ego, pride, anger, rage, sexual appetite, greed, and literally all vices are derived from our natural depravity. Societal ills are not so much the result of a particular political direction but rather a degenerative trend of society itself. It is however becoming apparent that the lower we sink into the abyss, the more left-leaning our culture becomes.

Progressivism has grown very critical of capitalism and points to the many cases of corporate greed and corruption as the justification for centralized control. From a societal point of view, it is a waste of time to be preoccupied with greed because it is a motive and not an action but when greed leads to theft, deceit, fraud, monopolies and other endless outcomes, it is then that some sort of governmental framework may be warranted. The problem with this is that much of the corporate corruption we see today is directly linked to the uniting of the public and private sectors. I have long said that I’m not anti-big business but I am anti-big business in bed with government. The most glaring examples of corporate corruption are tied to governmental regulation and policy whereby the biggest benefactors are typically the largest players. While politicians love to claim that new legislative and regulatory powers will protect the people, they often result only in more power to a select few.

The simple reality is that all people can become corrupt, not just those of certain political persuasions. Any ideology that relies on the hope that someone’s goodness will guide us to some sort of utopia is naïve. Our societal, cultural and national success cannot happen for any sustainable length by only a small group of leaders. Even if they began with the purist of intentions, time will likely tell a tale of weakening resolve and eventually lead to some form of corruption. Power is best suited to be spread around to limit any concentrated self-serving actions.