Good Example Of Essay On The Two Sides Of The World
The podcast of Moyers and Company regarding how the Liberals and Conservatives see the world has given psychological and moral examples that are keen to the understanding of laymen. The main points of the movie are concentrated on the contrasting elements of both sides as seen by the Americans.
The first question raised was, “Why are good people divided politically or religiously?” In this case, the principle of “divide to compete” is mentioned, relating that being “group-ish” is healthy because this “good-evil dichotomy” idealistically divides people while making them realize that they are a part of the same country.
In the sound bite of the interview clip of journalist Lesley Stahl with Rep. John Boehner, the comparison between “governing” and “compromising” was discussed as an element of the struggle of liberalism versus conservatism; Rep. Boehner said that the word “compromise” was inappropriate, and that in order for the conflict to make sense, a “common ground” must be sought, to which Stahl subsequently questioned.
The podcast furthermore explains the remarkable difference between the liberals and conservatives by using the concept of “karma” that is: the conservatives are in the moral position of believing in karma in which whatever a person does in the society, the fruit of his actions shall be the ultimate consequence i.e. putting a person to jail when there is a violation of any law. Meanwhile, the liberals seem to revoke the law of karma by setting off ultimate consequences of a person’s action with compassion i.e. allowing a criminal to bail.
It is also mentioned in the movie that fairness is at the heart of the movements “Occupy Wall Street” and “Tea Party” movements. They mentioned that “fairness in proportionality” is what the moral views of both sides are standing up for. The idea of “success versus failure” contends that the government should stop punishing the successful through the distributive policies of taking from them and giving to their opposite, and stop rewarding failure through welfares and payments given to the unemployed citizens.
The podcast, after all, gave a clarifying point that in order to understanding how the liberals and conservatives see the world, the first step to make is to understand that none of the sides are crazy.
The most moving example used in this movie was the clip which signifies the great difference between fairness and compassion when the question “Who shall pay for the hospital bills of a coma patient who did not avail of the mandatory health insurance but suddenly needed it?” In this case, there was freedom exercised by the coma patient when he was still normal. The last question posted was, “Should the society let him die?” There was a pause and the audience deliberately shouted “yes!”
The final cut of the podcast mentioned an allegory of the grasshopper and the ant: ants gather food before winter in order to have a stock for winter; however, the grasshopper did not do the same that is why when winter came, the latter had no food so he asked from the former. With this, the distinction between the liberals and conservatives came in full light: the liberals will feed him, the conservatives won’t.
The beauty of differences in a society lies on the fact that there is unity in diversity. The moral and societal standing of different groups are deemed to be complimentary, if not conflicting. The views of the liberals and the conservatives are highly delineated from each and because of this; the ability of the people to group themselves according to what they believe in is more accessible.
Unfortunately, these differences are producing a division that may, in the future, become irreparable. In the podcast of Moyers and Company, it is clear that the standing of both sides are polarized and irreconcilable to a certain extent. The ways they see the world is not just different but opposing, even questioning the existence of moral and social psychology in everyday scenario, which is very dependent whether you are a liberal or a conservative.
With this, the concept of “divide to compete” does not only fall on the purview of competition between the parties’ belief and understanding of the world; the division itself has made the competition for truth and fairness tighter than ever.