In the past, our political and philosophical differences were a bit more…nuanced. Those differences were more a disagreement on the method to get to the same place. Now? We can’t even communicate with each other, much less pick a common destination. In the last few decades, things have changed, by an exponential factor. And it is now a requirement to choose a very drastic side of one or another, as the two sides are mutually exclusive—to the point where compromise is a bit of a pipe dream. For expediency’s sake, I’ll call the sides Side 1 and Side 2. It will become decidedly obvious which is which. Let’s dig.
Voting
Side 1 believes that EVERYONE should vote in US elections. Citizens, non-citizens, felons, prisoners still in jail, what have you. Voting should also be effortless—done via mail, Internet, in person, or via ballots sent to your address, to be collected by…someone. Validating whom the voter is, or establishing a ‘chain of evidence’ of said ballots is simply restricting someone from their explicit right to vote. And to challenge those positions is ‘disenfranchisement’ of some minority or another.
Side 2 believes that additional measures to ensure the accuracy of our elections is a valid attempt to combat fraud in said elections. They feel only legal-age, non-felon, LIVE citizens should be able to cast a single ballot per election. They think obtaining a voter-ID, something needed in thousands of daily adult transactions, should be free or low-cost, but as counterfeit-proof as possible. And that ID should be MANDATORY to vote. In Side 2’s thinking, election day is just that—ONE DAY. If it is important to the voter to cast a ballot, they should do so in person on THAT DAY. Exceptions for hospitalized voters, or deployed military should be granted, provided the method establishes the identity of the absentee ballot—including a personal signature. No one but the US Postal Service should handle these ballots, until they are counted in a secure location, with poll watchers in attendance. Pick a side.
Science
Side 1 believes in the current view of science, which is a several part view. They believe industrialized man has damaged the Earth, so badly that, in a few centuries time, the planet will be uninhabitable by humans. Side 1 thinks we should either return to pre-industrial US (to reduce greenhouse gas levels), or live GREEN by converting our nasty, smelly, polluting, fossil-fuel burning methods of energy creation with solar, wind, or electric power (or some as yet undiscovered process). The approach here is to spend literally BILLIONS of dollars to reduce mean temperatures a degree or two over a hundred years or so. Side 1 also believes there are more than two sexes—that a child can ‘decide’ their gender, regardless of any physical attributes they possess. That a man taking estrogen and wearing a dress is no longer a man, because they choose not to be. That a woman taking testosterone and dressing like a man is now a male. Chromosomal differences are to be ignored. Side 1 also believes that we can somehow remove risk of illness and death via virus, by administering a vaccine to everyone. And that vaccine should be mandatory—to fail to take it should deny the person healthcare, ability to attend public places, and prevent that person from working their job. Side 1 believes they are at risk because of someone else’s health choices.
Side 2 has a different view of all of the prior positions. They believe the Earth has had warming and cooling trends since prior to mankind’s existence, during their existence, and will continue to do so after man is extinct. They believe the Sun is a MUCH larger determinate on weather than man, and spending those billions of dollars is a folly, writ large. If new energy creation technology is developed, that is cleaner, more planet-friendly, and cost-effective than fossil fuels, wonderful! The market will rush to buy! But until that is usable, reliable, portable energy, Side 2 would much rather stay with what works. And Side 2 knows that ‘electricity’ is created via fossil fuels, for those not near a hydroelectric dam. And that the trace minerals needed to create the current-day batteries such engines require is more damaging to the Earth than any fossil fuel exhaust. Side 2 believes gender is ‘assigned’ at conception—the in-womb child is either a male or a female. Period. No matter what you do to the child, teen, or adult, that fact does not change. Yes, there are a VERY small percentage of children born with both or no sexual organs. But that does not impact the overwhelming majority of humans. Notice Side 2 does not challenge how an individual chooses to appear, or whom they are sexually attracted to. If a biological male truly feels more comfortable in appearance to express themselves as a woman, more power to them (and likewise, biological females). But to require that the rest of society participate in their lie is absurd. And as for sexual attraction, it is quite obvious there are very happy same-sex relationships. But Side 2 does not want such programming administered to elementary-age children. Children are confused enough, without exposing them to varieties of such things they are very unlikely to understand. Side 2 is also much more likely to distrust a ‘vaccine’ that does not prevent one from contracting the virus it was intended to stop, nor does it prevent hospitalization or death from said virus. Side 2 errs on the side of freedom: if you want the ‘vaccine’, by all means, get it. But if you do not, there should not be government-enforced consequences for not getting it. Period. For a virus with roughly the same fatality rate as the flu (which it conveniently displaced for the last two years), over-aggressive dictates for those both ill and healthy is over-reach. And requiring ‘masking’ for everyone, including the lowest-risk portion of our population, children, is not only worthless, it is damaging our kids. Pick a side.
News and Crime
Side 1 believes that Side 2 is evil, and that only Side 1 views are appropriate to be shared to the masses. That nearly all of news media is Side 1 tends to slant the available information towards Side 1 opinion. The audience should be told what to think, in concurrence with Side 1 values and opinions. Note that ‘news’ and ‘opinions’ are interchangeable now—in the past, they were distinctly different information. Side 1 thinks that if ‘their guy’ does something wrong, it is completely forgivable, if not ignored entirely. If a Side 2 person does the exact same thing, the media treatment is quite different. Side 1 feels that a protest that espouses their views can contain violence, arson, looting, and destruction. But if a protest is counter to their worldview, it should be labeled a crime, even if it lacks any of the destructive measures listed. Side 1 believes that some crime (shoplifting, drug usage and sale, public decency, overnight ‘camping’, etc. are also manifestations of racism, and should not be enforced at all.
Side 2 believes it is up to the audience to decide what they want to believe. The facts should be reported as honestly as possible. Side 2 thinks Side 1 may not be evil, but they are decidedly wrong in their approach to things. Side 2 also thinks that any protest that steps across the legal line is a riot, and should be treated accordingly. Any protest that harms no one or destroys no property, should be handled as Constitutionally-protected free speech. Side 2 thinks that any party breaking the law should be subject to arrest, trial, and punishment—even if they happen to be public figures, minorities, or even political or media people. Pick a side.
Welfare, Compensation, and Profit
Side 1 believes that unemployed people should receive enough unemployment funds to sustain a non-meager lifestyle. Side 1 feels that past and current racism are so prevalent, that it is the cause of the unemployment in the first place. Opportunity, education, and lifestyles are all a function of that racism, so taxpayers should support everyone beset by such conditions. The length of time of such compensation is not bounded—short-term should be covered by unemployment, long-term should be covered by Welfare. Side 1 also feels that any work should be compensated at a level governmentally enforced such that the worker should have a ‘suitable’ lifestyle. Side 1 has little regard for the value of the work performed to the employer—employers’ role is to provide good paying jobs, not become ‘wealthy’. Side 1 feels the US has been built, since inception, by the ‘wealthy’ taking advantage of the less so, by only offering jobs at as little pay as possible, all while making obscene profits for themselves.
Side 2 believes that unemployment compensation should be a last-option method to assist those in between jobs. It should not be so large an amount as to become a negative incentive to work. And those capable of work should…work. Side 2 acknowledges past racism and racist policies, but believes the Civil Rights Movement of the 1960s and 1070s removed many, if not all, of the boundaries to success, to anyone willing to do the work. Side 2 also understands the risks and efforts required for a businessman to start and run a business. They know that upwards of 80% of new business ventures fail within their first three years. Side 2 is aware that a business will only stay operational if the cost to produce their product or service is less than the retail price of that good or service. Profit is the incentive to start the business in the first place, and is the incentive to improve upon it, expanding products to be sold, expanding the markets to try to sell them. Side 2 is aware of the risk of such ventures, and knows that such actions may actually fail. Side 2 believes that the government should stay out of the employee-employer relationship, aside from providing a reasonably healthy workplace. It is not an unrealistic expectation of an employee to safely return home from work each day. Pick a side.
Conclusion
Modern disagreements are not arguments over positions, they are fights over which things are facts and which are not. The Sides are pretty dug in on their positions. If compromise is not possible (and I don’t think it is), the resolution may come to implicit or explicit conflict, if it hasn’t already. Pick a side.
Thank you for taking the time to read my article! Feel free to add comments (good or bad) in the box below. In addition, there is a link at the bottom of the article to view other items I’ve written at Global Liberty Media. Enjoy!
