Quality of Life
The way I see it, people frame their political views based on the idea of “quality of life.” What you see as central to your quality of life frames your political views. Take any political issue, and I would bet your views on it can be traced back to your opinion on what makes a “good life.” Those who are for gay marriage frame the issue on the idea that legal recognition improves the quality of life for gay couples. Those who are opposed to gay marriage frame the issue on how protecting traditional society preserves a quality of life. Those who oppose abortion base their view on the idea that abortion violates a fetus’ quality of life, whereas those in favor of choice base their view on the idea that a woman’s quality of life is impeded if she does not control her own body.
The list goes on and on. Those who are in favor of the war in Iraq argue that it protects the quality of American lives. Those opposed to the war argue that it is a waste of American lives. Those who are for school vouchers argue it supports the quality of life of children, while those who oppose school vouchers see vouchers as hurting the quality of life of children. Democrats tend to see issues of social equity as vital to our general quality of life, Republicans tend to see free markets as central to our quality of life.
Given that this is the case, there are two interesting points I would like to make. The first is that “quality of life” issues are not religious in nature. There are those who see the issues through the context of religion, but one chooses to follow a particular faith (or rejects religious faith) because they see their faith as a benefit to their life. There are those who base their arguments on religious doctrine, but this is simply a way to say “my views on quality of life are valid”, or even “my views are more valid than yours.” But the central discussion is not religious, it is societal. I think this is an important distinction to make because too often political discussions are sabotaged by arguing over the validity of a particular religion rather than the political issues. If societal issues are based on quality of life, then one’s personal faith is irrelevant to the discussion. It is too easy to dismiss someone’s political views because you disagree with their religion, but this doesn’t address the real and valid differences of opinion.
The second is that despite all the bickering on both sides, our views on what makes a quality life are far less diverse than we would tend to admit. Those who are against abortion are not generally in favor of subjugating the independence of women, and those who favor choice generally don’t feel that abortion is no different than having a wart removed. Those who support the war generally recognize the sacrifice our soldiers make, and those who oppose the war generally recognize the tough choices our soldiers make every day. At the heart of it all, most people want a quality life, and support the right of others to have the same. We only differ on details.
Which leads me to a proposal regarding political discussions. Rather than arguing from a right vs. left or religious vs. secular standpoint, what if we started any political discussion with a question: What do you value? If we started a discussion by first asking the other side what they value, and what is important to them (and truly listen to their views), then we could begin by understanding how each side frames the issue, and how their views on “quality of life” focus their opinion. If we did that, there would still be some issues (like abortion or the Iraq war) where it is hard to find common ground. But I would bet that a large chunk of political issues we constantly argue over (like education and health care) common ground would be easy to find. Then maybe, just maybe, we could make serious progress on these issues.
It shouldn’t be too hard for brave humans.
Be Brave. Be Human.
Brian
January 11th, 2007 13:35
Brian,
Well said and an excellent suggestion. At the least, you’d like to see civil, two-way dialogue within your blog context. But how do we achieve this at the political candidate or government level?
BTW, I’ve been wanting to ‘dive in’ on some of your (and your partners’) blog entries, but just haven’t had the energy or time to do anything more than reading or superficial posting, which is not what I wanted to do for some of your ‘hot’ topics. Does this sound like a cop out?
I’ll get there eventually.
Peace / God Bless,
Jonathan
January 12th, 2007 10:59
flip here, outsider, friend of grant + susan, scientist, father, recreational civil libertarian, long time listener, first time caller. (Oh- random capitalizer and poor speller also.)
“quality of life” arguments can be further divided in a whole variety of other categories - ‘individual’ quality of life vs. ‘collective’ quality of life. I.e. - what is good for -me- (Hi Ayn Rand fans!) vs. what is good for -us-.
Furthermore- there is the quality of life of ingroup vs. outgroup. I.e. what is good for -us- vs. what is good for -them-.
There’s even the -me- vs. -you- if you want to get fully-factorial about it (pls refer to Grant for experimental design issues
I agree largely with the premise of the post, I just wonder how one might parse these sorts of arguments a little more finely wrt the categorizations I point out above? If you’re straight but support gay marriage you have to contemplate how does my support of the outgroup (them) impact on -me- and -us-. If your a vice president you wonder how the quality of life of your gay daughter (-you-) impacts the QOL of yourself (-me-) , your friends/cabinet (-us-) and your political enemies (-them-).
Like all things factorial it seems to get wicked-complicated.
January 12th, 2007 22:51
Welcome, Jonathan!
Yes, civil dialogue from all sides is what we are looking for at BraveHumans. It is why several of us started the site in the first place. If civil discourse is encouraged, it will trickle into the political arena. One of the problems I see around the blogosphere is that while lots of people want civil discussions, they don’t come together often enough to have a significant voice. Right now there isn’t a major blog site that encourages political viewpoints from all sides. If you go down the list of political blogs on Technorati for example, you have Huffington Post, Daily Kos, and Crooks and Liars on the left, Michelle Malkin, Little Green Footballs, and Hot Air on the right. And generally neither circles talk to each other. Personally, I think that needs to change, and I don’t see any of the above sites changing any time soon.
Hence BraveHumans. Hopefully BraveHumans (or a site like it) will rise above the white noise of the blogosphere and gain an audience of people who want to change the way politics is done in this country. If we can find our voice we can hold politicians to task and be heard. We can ask the hard questions honestly and demand honest answers. We can drown out the bobble-heads on both sides with thoughtful, honest punditry and real discussion. We CAN do it if we keep writing, keep listening, and keep spreading the word.
As for lacking the time to post, it is hardly a cop out. It is always hard to find the time, particularly if you want your responses to be thoughtful. So post when you have time, even on older topics, and welcome to the site.
Brian
January 12th, 2007 23:21
Hiya, Flip! Welcome to the site!
You are right, things are never as simple as they seem, and there are lots of ways you could spin “quality of life” issues. Part of my motivation for writing this post stemmed from a comment Rick made on my Dear Ann Coulter post. Rick pointed out that Coulter et al didn’t start out as “insta-ranters”. It got me thinking about how easy it is to fall into the pattern of the standard response. The “discussions” we see on the large media are simply the same old pundits and rebuttals. It struck me how rarely one side honestly asks the other side about what motivates their politics and how that shapes their world view.
I have a hunch that if we did that more, we would find ourselves differing more on nuances and less on ideology. There will always be hot-button issues, but I suspect many of them are just issues because they are proposed by “the other side.”
January 17th, 2007 21:50
Brian,
I think you have plenty of valuable content in this post. I would add another tangent, and have started a blog a while back on the subject. I propose that we are more likely to form our political opinions and such based on what we “fear.”
I fear the result that will come if homosexuals are allowed to marry, or if their way of doing sex becomes mainstream. I may fear this because I don’t want my sons or grandsons to be swept into this camp, or I may fear for society, etc.
If I’m in the other camp, I fear that a society that is intemperant of different lifestyles might not know where to stop. I might also fear that should I or one of my close friends of family members wish to live the lifestyle, they would be unable to persue their choice in a full and complete way. I would feel badly for them.
So what kind of weather I fear may have something to do with where I live, but also how I feel about global warming. Personally I hope things do warm up about 2 degrees. I already live in West LA, but it would actually be just a bit more perfect 2 degrees warmer on average.
For more see http://what-are-you-afraid-of.blogspot.com/.
Thanks for dropping by http://godvsnogod.blogspot.com. Hope you will comment often. I can see why you appreciate the neutral stance of the blog, and my intent to keep the tone civil. I am currently engaged in a debate on this subject with some scientist/philosophers who think it is perfectly acceptable to have uncivil debate. To each his own, I guess.
I like your way better.
Don’t hesitate to take anything from any of my sites to begin a thread here, and I will contemplate if there is an original idea in my head that might fit here.
January 17th, 2007 23:57
Welcome to the site, Randy! Glad you like it so far.
Your point about fear is well taken. I would probably broaden it to all emotions, rather than just fear. I’m reminded of an observation made during the 2004 election, that Bush supporters were scared and Kerry supporters were angry, which was probably true on some level. I would also argue fear is a terrible way to make decisions. (Hence the name of the blog).
I’m sure I’ll stop by your site from time to time. I’m sure you will get a lot of heat from the seculars. In my experience I find the arguments from both sides to be a) assume god exists/doesn’t exist, b) cite proofs that the other side is comprised of the unenlightened. Where I get irritated is when one side or the other starts claiming science PROVES their theological/philosophical stance. But I’m sure that will show up in a future post.