What do we have in common?
Tonight I have been thinking about what I have in common with those who have positions opposite mine in certain issues. And really, I think this is something we need more of — focusing on our commonalities rather than our differences.
For example, the recent news that America has a high STD rate among teenage girls has me thinking about sex education and family planning. My position is that teenagers should be taught in school that abstinence is the best — and the only guaranteed — way of preventing unwanted pregnancy and STDs, but they should also be taught ways to have safer sexual relations in the event that they do decide to fool around or have sex. The conservative approach around these parts seems to advocate for abstinence-only sex education in the schools. I think it’s worth noticing that both approaches have the same goal: fewer STDs and fewer unwanted pregnancies; they differ in means but have the same end in mind.
Sometimes I can spot a similar principle at work across different issues, but in different ways. For instance, I think that 2nd Amendment advocates and GLBT Rights advocates have a common principle: government should not interfere with our civil liberties. Yet one is thought of as a “conservative” issue and the other as a “liberal” issue. Remove the liberal/conservative lens and what were once opposing ideas are now near each other on an ideological spectrum, the head and the tail of a political orouboros.
So, I challenge you, reader. Whether you identify as progressive or conservative or anywhere in between, can you find one of your issues where the opposing view has the same goal? Can you find an example of a common principle at work across seemingly unrelated issues?
I suspect that you can. That’s why I believe that we have a good reason to hope for a new kind of politics in America.
Share This
March 14th, 2008 at 9:41 am
Love the blog; I’ve been reading for about a month now. With the sex ed example, I don’t really think the point that “we all want the same thing but have different approaches” actually works, but we don’t really want the same things. If social conservatives were really just out for fewer STDs and teen pregnancies, then they’d be on board with comprehensive sex ed, seeing as pretty much every study shows that it’s significantly more effective than abstinence-only at lowering the frequency of said conditions. They would similarly be on board with mandating HPV vaccinations, which would save countless lives of women who will otherwise die from cervical cancer.
They’re not on board, though, and appeals to the efficacy for both programs (comprehensive sex ed and HPV vaccinations) fall on deaf ears because that’s not really the objective of the Right. The objective is to make kids stop having sex, and safer sexual practices are actually an impediment to that objective because it makes sex less dangerous. Furthermore, STDs separate the wheat from the chaff because those who contract STDs “deserve it” because they engaged in wicked acts.
The difference between social liberals and social conservatives on this issue is that liberals see abstinence as a way to keep kids from contracting deadly diseases, and conservatives see deadly diseases as a way to keep kids from having sex.
March 17th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Hey thanks, el ranchero! And you make an interesting point. I will say that I still think there is some chance of common ground in spite of what you say (which is probably true). We can say that both sides want to avoid unwanted pregnancies, but with different methods and goals beyond that fact.
The point I was trying to make with my post is that if we all try a little harder to find common ground (tiny though it may be), then we can change the political landscape — and even the way our country is governed — for the better.