Extrapolating: Communists and Constitutionalists

I made an interesting discovery a while ago. As a sociologist and social worker by education, I had obviously been raised with liberal political views, and one thing I felt very strongly was that Republicans were bad because they hated poor people. My personal experience with staunch conservatives had been quite negative in this regard. It seemed clear that Republicans hated welfare, thought it was a waste of money, and didn’t think poor people deserved help of any kind from the rest of society. They were the “self-made” men, who from the viewpoint of Charles Dickens' character Mr. Bounderby in Hard Times, are ultimately a myth. Where you come from has such a huge impact on what you’re able to achieve -- without denying there are individual differences that may exacerbate or ameliorate an individual’s situation -- as a group there are clearly barriers to success that those from wealthier backgrounds don’t have to confront. Regardless of what we may say about everyone having a fair chance in America, some people just don’t. Whether they were taught poor values, born with a drug addiction, have an unstable family, or simply live in a neighborhood without jobs, public transportation, decent schools, or grocery stores that sell fresh produce. I have spent most of my educational life bitter and angry towards the selfish, snobby Republicans who are so clearly oblivious to these factors and think only of protecting their “hard-earned” money.

I found out I was wrong.

It was on a date, ironically, with a cute guy who seemed to have a lot in common with me - until politics were brought up. I was as far left as you could go while still thinking Communism was generally bad. He was a libertarian. He said, no government - I said, the poor need help. He said no government, I said, the poor need help. Then he said this: Yes, you’re right, they do need help. And I think we should help them. I just think it shouldn’t be the government that does it. He talked about enabling and inspiring people to develop community initiatives, nonprofits, and individual giving, that a reduction in taxes would give people and companies more freedom to do that. Woah. Uh, I hadn't thought of that. I struck back when I challenged that some underrepresented groups still wouldn’t get help and that we risked people not being generous to the poor because we’ve set a precedent of government help, but at the end of the date two things happened. I knew there wasn’t going to be a second date, and I realized that all Republicans don’t really hate the poor. They believe the poor should be helped - but that for many reasons it’s better that it not be the government who does it.

In eight years of higher education, no one had ever suggested that possibility. Read: no one in the sociology or social work departments where I found myself had ever mentioned it. It had never occurred to me. It totally flipped my worldview (Nevertheless, we did not have a second date).

Over the course of two years, I gradually came to accept the hypocrisy in my own education and the ignorance I had so long been seeing in others as my own fault as well. I became angry at the people who had kept me so polarized and narrow-minded -- what were they trying to do to me? Did no one ever suggest this possibility to them or were they too one-sided to recognize the ugly truth when it challenged their philosophical box? Yeah -- that’s how it went down. I kept it pretty undercover from my new husband (who started not one but two Republican-oriented clubs in high school, actively campaigned for local Republican politicians and wrote for his college conservative newsletter). I could now see holes in both arguments, and suddenly I wasn’t sure who the good guys and bad guys were anymore.

Then I found out I was right… Partially. I wasn’t wrong about my previous experience with Republicans. I HAD met some snobbish pigs. I just realized that they weren’t all in one party. The nature of the problem in both parties is taking a single good principle and extrapolating it to an extreme to the exclusion of all other principles.
People who feel very strongly about maintaining the original intent of the Constitution often get upset about the federal government overstepping its Constitutionally outlined powers. Doing so opens the doors to lawlessness the compromise of checks and balances and diminished power of local and state governments to respond to the needs of their citizens. However, as Mitch Daniels said to far-right activists known as the Conservative Political Action Conference last February, “We should distinguish carefully skepticism about big government from contempt for all government” (New York Times). Some people fall into exactly that hole. Their beliefs about big government dominate their beliefs about behavior in every other realm (When all you have is a hammer, etc). While Republicans are more likely to donate to charities than Democrats, overall attitudes toward poor and minority groups are more positive among Democrats. This is extrapolation: When Republicans believe that the governments shouldn’t help the poor, so therefore the poor don’t deserve to be helped. In fact, there is a baby being thrown out with the bathwater. The truth is more complex and more compassionate. While I am hardly an expert on what the role of the government should be regarding poverty and inequality in America, I know for certain what my role should be as a citizen, a wife, a daughter, a neighbor, a tax payer, and a member of my community. I know I have a responsibility to act with wisdom and compassion, being aware of and responding to the needs of those around me. This, however must not lead to false extrapolation #2 : socialism.

While Republicans may be more prone to top-down extrapolation errors, Democrats are far more likely to err from the bottom up. With the firm conviction of the power of and need for change and a deeply held concern for the well-being of those around us, Democrats reach for the tools at their disposal - including individual, community, and government initiatives, without seeing any significant differentiation between them. During my time in the field, the distinction between these entities was never regarded as significant, other than that individuals and communities SHOULD help, but the government is OBLIGATED to help. I attribute this to one of two possible causes: Social scientists may be so focused on the nature and cause of various social issues that they neglect a careful study of government and economics (which is certainly true in my case). Secondly, the concerns of Constitutionalists and economists may be overlooked or seen as trivial when compared to the urgent welfare of Burmese refugees, victims of child abuse, collapsing families, or racial inequality.

Democrats believe that the rich should help the poor, but instead of simply using personal influence to encourage those with means to improve the lives of others, it has become a matter of enforcing it legally. Democrats, as a result, are more likely to make this extrapolation: These individuals need help, and therefore everyone and every entity should be obligated to help. Such views, when taken to this extreme, compromise civil liberties and wear the mask of communism.

The concept of extrapolation, then, is a common among both parties. The issues are different, the directions are opposite, but the problem is the same. Let us understand better the role of government, the role of personal freedom, and understand the power of both in improving our lives and maintaining our freedoms. The solution is somewhere between the two -- not a compromise, but a synergy of truth. Our country can embrace freedom and equality, but only as government and individuals understand and fulfill their unique, vital roles.