Political Philosophizing

This isn't related to anything in particular, but I figured now is as good a time as any to post it. Also, if what follows seems rather obvious to you, keep in mind that I'm 19 years old and didn't know anything about politics until a couple years ago.

Anyway, I've been thinking about the differences between liberals and conservatives (or left and right, if you prefer), and I realized a very profound difference: Conservatives try to deal with reality, while liberals try to create reality.

Let's look at a few examples. Take affirmative action. Liberals support affirmative action because they want to make sure that all races and ethnicities are equally represented in as many institutions as possible. They feel that some sort of nebulous oppressive force is keeping some groups out of college or denying them the opportunity to work.

Therefore, liberals believe that if they resort to racial preferences, it will cancel out the negative effects of White Racism™ and bring equality to all the happy little children of the world (that's probably the vision they get).

Now, the problem is that, although this may seem like a Good Thing™ (had enough trademarks yet?), it just doesn't match reality. There's never going to be racial equality or perfect representation, because outside forces and, in some cases, self-segregation make it impossible for an exact representation of the population to enter an institution naturally.

This applies to all the races, incidentally, since white people's lives aren't exactly sunshine and lollipops either. Show me an institution where the percentage of white people is equal to that in the general population, and I'll show you an area with a population of 1 person. That's the only way it's going to work naturally.

Conservatives tend to accept this, and instead of trying to create equality, we believe that merit should determine your place in life. An institution should be composed of the right kinds of people, not the right colors of people.

We know that in the Real World, you can't get an equal representation of every race and ethnicity without denying the abilities of someone else, but liberals tend to assume that inequality is always due to racism, and this compels them to try and create a world that fits their racial paradigm, even though it's a world that never has existed and probably never will.

This can be applied to other situations as well. The war in Iraq is a good example. The Bush administration, along with much of the American population, saw that 12 years of diplomacy and sanctions weren't going to work, and we decided to use force to get rid of Saddam Hussein. Makes sense, right?

Well, to a liberal, it might not. Even though they were there for the 12 years of failed diplomacy, they couldn't accept the fact that evil people exist, and they were convinced that negotiation would eventually make a difference. In other words, they formed their opinions in relation to the world they would like to live in, not the world they actually DO live in.

Another example is socialism. In a perfect world, the government would be able to provide just about anything for its people, and it would always be the highest possible quality. Unfortunately, the real world doesn't work that way, and if you try to give everyone the same thing, it's going to have a negative effect on a lot of areas.

A belief in the value of socialism also entails a belief that competition is bad. Recent incidents, like the school that removed the honor roll because it made dumber students feel bad, prove that liberals don't like competition.

In their ideal world, we'd all be dependent on the government for all our needs, and we'd never have to compete for resources. That way, everyone could be equal, and there would be no more problems! (parenthetical aside: According to the sociology class I took last semester, this is known as "conflict theory," or the belief that all social problems are the result of inequalities between people and classes, and the solution is to make sure everyone is equal, ensuring a lack of competition and, therefore, conflict. It's basically Marxism Lite)

Once again, conservatives realize that true equality isn't possible, so we believe that the people who work hardest should be rewarded more than those who don't work. This is, after all, a basic foundation of biological existence. You don't have to believe in Darwinism to realize that "survival of the fittest" is a pretty accurate description of the way most creatures live.

In all these cases, the main difference is clear: Conservatives try to make the best of reality, while liberals attempt to create their ideal version of it. This, of course, results in the basic ideological conflict of "stupid vs. evil." Conservatives think liberals are stupid for not grasping reality, and liberals think conservatives are evil because they can't see the happy rainbow world that exists in the liberal mind.

So, that's what I've been thinking about lately. Just remember this: If life gives a conservative lemons, he'll make lemonade. If life gives a liberal lemons, he'll complain that he needs limes, grapes, apples, and watermelons to represent fruit diversity. Then, he'll say that life is mean because his friend got less lemons than he did.

Simple, but true.