DiscussMormonism.com

I used to say the Republicans are the party of 'me' and the Democrats are the party of 'we'. It's like members of the 2 parties been watching 2 different movies about America:

• The Republicans are watching High Noon.
• The Democrats are watching It's a Wonderful Life.

Those 2 movies are the synthesis of 2 valid but different pieces of wisdom:

• You can't rely on society. You must follow your own moral code.
• We are all in this together. No man is an island.

I think our perceptions we each have about individual versus social responsibility, capitalism and socialism are based upon which one of those 2 pieces of wisdom resonates more strongly within.

For example, the Right to Life movement is based upon the idea that a human life is sacred. Abortion is the ultimate attack against the sanctity of the individual. The Pro-choice movement says it is ultimately the decision of the mother, and that there is a greater social debate about what 'the sanctity of life' means.

Sister Joan Chittister wrote:I think in many cases, your morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed. And why would I think that you don't? Because you don't want any tax money to go there. That's not pro-life. That's pro-birth. We need a much broader conversation on what the morality of pro-life is.

In a weird way, this is almost a 'chicken or the egg' argument. Is human life sacred because every life is born? Or is human life sacred because every life that is born is welcomed?

I think that sometimes the way around these seemingly intransigent arguments is to think about the importance of the principle over the symbol. (Think about how much of the government shutdown was generated by the definition of a border wall versus border security. The wall is the symbol. Security is the principle.) In this situation, the sanctity of life is the principle. How do we move towards the principle when people disagree on the importance of the symbol?

That's an interesting question. I've heard the divide between liberals and conservatives explained by a difference in how a person values certain moral benchmarks such as loyalty v. individualism, purity v. diversity. But if we look at each of the hot button issues in American politics it seems to me that there is no clear cut place where the symbol v. principal is consistently understood as individual v. society.

For example, if we look at the 1st Amendment guarantees of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc., what is the underlying principal that both sides would agree is at their heart? I'm puzzling over that one because the answers that come immediately to my mind are not necessarily a principal someone who is an informed conservative would agree with. Is the principal behind the freedoms described in the 1st Amendment about not constraining personal expression? or there to ensure the people can always find a voice in opposition to oppression at the highest levels? Or perhaps something else entirely, and those are really the symbols?

In this case, I'd expect most liberals would favor a principle that places the "me" over the "we", and vice-versa for conservatives. But when we then go to the 2nd amendment, I think it flips on us. Liberals seem to view the principles behind it as about the "we" while conservatives view this issue through the lens of maximum personal freedom. Or so it seems to me. Could both sides find a principle at the heart of the 2nd amendment where they agree that bridges this? I'm not sure.

Something to chew on I guess.

I will get to your response, but I just wanted to add a classic example about symbols and principles: Flag Burning. Conservatives tend to defend the symbol of the flag, (with a few libertarians falling off the end of the wagon), liberals defend the principle.

MeDotOrg wrote:I will get to your response, but I just wanted to add a classic example about symbols and principles: Flag Burning. Conservatives tend to defend the symbol of the flag, (with a few libertarians falling off the end of the wagon), liberals defend the principle.

This muddied the water for me. My understanding, and personal support for allowing the burning of the flag as a matter of expression, comes from seeing it as a form of speech. Yet I understand why, to a conservative who opposes flag burning, the principle they express for not allowing it is respect for those who lost their lives defending what it stands for. Undoubtedly the flag stands as a symbol, and what it symbolizes differs from individual to individual. But how do we form consensus around a principle when ensuring freedom of speech encroaches on respecting what the flag symbolizes to someone else? If we say respecting what the flag symbolizes includes allowing those who might not share the respect for the flag to defile it as a form of expression, we're asking for a certain degree of nuance rather than defining a clear principle, are we not? Or, perhaps better said, we're asking them to reassign the symbol of the flag from one of respect to one of values. That seems like a heavy lift.

moksha wrote:

• The Republicans are watching The Godfather.
• The Democrats are watching It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World.

Those 2 movies are the synthesis of 2 valid but different pieces of wisdom:

• We stand for America and sell olive oil, honest.
• We are all off to race for the prize in a disjointed manner.

The Penguin gets it.