Differing world views, how can they be so different?

Watching the political polarisation, especially in the US, I'm amazed by how differently those on the political Right see the world, from the way the political Left sees it. Because of these differences in viewpoints, the country, and to a lesser degree the world, is becoming more and more polarised every day, which is now starting to manifest itself in political violence. The extreme viewpoints on these topics that are proliferated  through social media and media outlets that are getting more brazen with their wording, will often overshadow the more moderate and educated voices on both sides. It's a powder-keg, and it's scary to watch as it gets worse.

So how did we get here, where the political environment is supercharged with negative energy, and people are taking a tribal approach, not to solve the problems, but to blame and ostracise the other side? How can we have a functioning society if it's so divided?

Well at the root of these differences between left and right, is a value system, or core components of those values that the rest of the beliefs are built upon.

Even though both sides agree on the finer points such as free speech(without hate speech), democracy,  having a crime-free environment, and a well-functioning economy, the core values will define the perceived path to achieve those finer points.

Without going into too much detail, I thought I'd list 5 things that I'd consider each side's most important concerns or values.

On the right, it's usually: 

1. Small government, including government spending but a strong well-funded military. Also a greater role of the church in education and state affairs. This often includes or at least overlaps with concerns around abortion.
2. Treating the Earth and its treasures as something to be harvested
3. Liberty. This notion is often closely connected to guns in the US at least.
4. Harsher punishment of crime
5. Strong border control and national pride.

On the left it would be

1. A government that looks after it's citizens, not just the rich. This includes affordable universal healthcare, and financial assistance for those that are struggling.
2. Environmental protection and responsibility, including clean energy
3. Putting sensible limits around what weapons are allowed in civilians hands.
4. Reform rather than punishment for criminals.
5. Acceptance of people of all races, ethnicities and sexual orientation. This includes refugees as well.

On the surface, without going into detail, both those sets of values look harmless enough, so it is very much a case of the devil being in the details as we dive deeper, or perhaps when any of those points is taken too far in one direction by an authoritarian leader. There's also something to be said for the morals of the person leading each of those groups.

So let's start with the first point. Is church or government better poised to look after the populace, especially those who are struggling to make ends meet? Well to start with the government is a lot better funded, but sure churches could and do have a role in looking after the poor.  It's something they've done historically. Here's what AI has to say:

"The government is typically better funded and responsible for large-scale, systemic support, whereas churches offer more localized, community-based, and often faith-driven assistance to fill gaps in care. Governments provide core funding for health services, disability support, and welfare programs, while churches and other faith-based organizations supplement this with direct aid, social services, and community care, though their funding sources and scale are much smaller. "

On the issue of abortion, the split in ideology centers on whether the life of the baby is more important, or the right and sometimes life of  the mother. Religion also plays a large role here for those on the Right. Since it's a case of a life within another life, both of the arguments fall short in some edge cases at least. I believe this is not a black and white case, where one side is right and the other is wrong, but some careful consideration is required to strike a balance.  I believe the original Roe v Wade decision struck a good balance, however later court decisions made it easier to get late-term abortions, which I don't agree with.

On the subject of the economy, the Right will often put rich and successful people on a pedestal, idolise them, and often puts them in power with the notion that if they've been successful financially on a personal level, surely they'll be successful in improving the economy of the country. That works to a degree, unless the person is self-serving and in it to enrich themselves, which often is the case.

Moving onto point 2, while I am squarely on the side of protecting the environment, and using clean energy, I also see the point that we have and will be utilising the Earth's resources to survive. And it's fair from the right to point out, that if we move from our current mostly-fossil-fuel energy in certain countries, to a mostly-clean-energy model too quickly, it may not be achievable, or if we start out with restrictions before the cleaner energy systems and infrastructure are in place, it may leave certain poorer countries without the ability to move around effectively or to heat their homes. However that argument has been used for the last 20-30 years, while it's quite obvious that glaciers are melting, and 50 to 100-year floods are becoming more common, so it is high time to put more effort and resources into making sure that wind and solar tech is available and at an affordable price for poorer countries as well, even if that means governments subsidising that cost, at least initially.

Point 3 is very interesting, and I think it varies with population density. So when you have a rural, low population-density environment, then having guns is not a bad or overly dangerous proposition. But as you start having cities, where the population density is much higher, you have a much higher chance of interpersonal conflict, so access to guns in that scenario need to be limited. Instead of working out such a system, and getting licensing and registration of guns,  similar to what they have for cars, the two sides on this issue have decided to retreat into their ideological corners, and despite all the talk and the heartache surrounding school shootings, not do anything about it, regardless of the scale of the shooting :(

Liberty also includes the freedom of speech and religion. On the former, both sides have objected to speech that they didn't like. The Right has been swift to go as far as arrest people critical of Israel, and to suggest that companies fire anyone critical of Charlie Kirk. On the subject of religion, the Right is openly disapproving of Islam, and not just of the religion, but often of the Muslims in the West practising that same faith, but who have already adopted Western values. At the same time, they will excuse any action by Israel and it's far-right wing leader.

On point 4 again it's a balance that needs to be struck, but so far the solution has veered too far to the Left in some cases, with violent criminals being let out, and recidivist crime on the rise. Unfortunately it seems that while some can be reformed, some definitely can't and therefore shouldn't be allowed out of prison after their first violent crime attempt. There's also an important point to be made here on mental health, but the point is not to ostracise those with serious mental health issues, but rather to provide care, medication and if needed institutionalisation for those with critical and potentially dangerous illnesses such as schizophrenia. That is, only until the point that they've remained peaceful and haven't committed a crime. After that I have no empathy, but will admit that often it's a systematic problem in that person's family that has driven them to the unfortunate situation where they find themselves.

Point 5 is also very interesting. The Right want to ensure only legal immigration is allowed into their country. I agree with that, but only if the country doesn't engage in regime-change or wars in foreign countries. If they engage in either, then they're creating refugees, and problems that you create, can often come back to bite you. In other words, if you create refugees by your actions, then you have an obligation to take care of them.

With respect to legal immigration, it appears that companies are more than happy to accept foreigners from overseas, when it comes to working for far less money for the same job, but as soon as those same foreign workers start realising that they cannot survive on the meager salaries they've accepted, the companies and recently the government turns against them and wants them deported.

The issue of illegal immigrants becomes complicated real quickly. If they've had children while in the country, now you have citizen children, with non-citizen parents, so if you apply the letter of the law rather than the intent, you will now separate that family, which nobody wants. On the other hand, if your process and forms for legal residency are overly complicated, or there's a large backlog, then some unscrupulous or desperate people will take the illegal route.So there's something to be said here for making the rules easier to follow, but also focusing on desirable elements such as level of education or skill and knowledge of the language as key elements, and making visa categories that make that easier for such people to immigrate into the country.

Another point that is important but I haven't touched on is work culture, and retirement. The work culture in the US is absolutely bonkers in my opinion. There's no government mandated minimum for annual leave, and people like to brag about how many hours per week they work, without realising that it's not a flex, but instead a sign of being overworked. To add to that, Ben Shapiro recently said that people shouldn't retire at 65, that you lose your sense of purpose once you retire, and die quickly afterwards. The irony is that he's never worked a manual labour job for a day in his life, so telling someone that's been working in manual labour and has fully used up their body to keep working after 65 is just tone-deaf and cruel. 

To summarise, I believe America is at a dangerous inflection point. It can either choose to come back more towards the centre or to continue on its current path and enter a dangerous ideology from the past which has lead to war, and the curtailment of people's rights. We see examples from other countries where news outlets that criticise the PM have been shut down and replaced by those that glorify the leader. That's not journalism, it's sycophancy. Or examples of people being fired from their jobs, for speaking out against a PM publicly, again that's something other than democracy and free speech.

The current leader repeatedly calling the entire Left, "radical left lunatics" and calling for retribution does not help the situation, in fact in inflames it. His thin-skinned narcissistic personality does not allow him to have a meaningful dialogue, but rather is more intent on seeking retribution which is not and hasn't historically been the path to peace.

The problems to solve are complex, but ultimately both sides would like a peaceful world where their children can grow up and prosper, hopefully own a house, and not have to work multiple jobs to make ends meet, or have to worry about crime happening in their neighbourhoods.

In my mind a younger charismatic, centrist leader that's willing to work with people across the aisle could fix this within a couple of terms. They would have to ignore the voices on the fringes of society and fix some of the basic problems first and foremost. The alternative is either a country that splits into two, or again goes down a dangerous path of a dictatorship, or worse. Let's hope that during the next election, the people are smart enough to pick a leader that will lead them back towards the centre and peace.