Conflicting Visions :: Politics Political Essays

Conflicting Visions Generally, people share common goals. Most of us want: poor people to enjoy higher standards of living, greater traffic safety, fewer wars and more world peace, greater racial harmony, cleaner air and water, and less crime. Despite the fact that people have common goals, more often than not, we see them grouped into contentious factions, fighting tooth and nail to promote differing government policies in the name of achieving those commonly held goals. Often the policies may be unproductive and often have the unintended consequence of sabotaging the goal. Almost always the conflict is centered around the means to achieve goals rather than the goals themselves. A good example of conflict surrounding means is found in the periodic debates over minimum wage and tariffs. Many people profess concern for the welfare of low-skilled workers. To achieve their goal, one group adamantly demands that Congress legislate higher minimum wages. Another group professing the identical concern, are just as adamant in demanding that Congress not legislate higher minimum wages. Similarly, one group of advocates for greater employment opportunities might lobby Congress for higher tariffs and stricter quotas on foreign imports. Another group of people sharing the identical goal will fight against tariffs and quotas and lobby for fewer trade restrictions. How is it that people who share identical goals come to advocate polar opposite policies? One possible explanation is that they are dishonest and simply promoting their personal interests. Their political strategy is to express concern for the unskilled and greater employment opportunities simply as a ruse to conceal their true agenda: higher wages, profits and monopoly wealth. The more interesting question is why do people, who are assumed to be honest, intelligent, selfless and not motivated by a hidden agenda, arrive at polar opposite policy proposals as a means to achieve commonly shared goals, that may indeed produce polar opposite results? Part of the answer is that they share different visions of how the world works. Consider the effects of different visions by going back to a time prior to Pythagoras' and Ptolemy's proofs that the earth was round. Imagine two honest and intelligent people in 1000 B.C. One person's initial premise is that the earth is flat. Based upon that premise, he would argue strenuously it is not possible to sail west from Greece and reach the Orient. The other person, whose initial premise is that the world is round, would argue just as strenuously that it is possible to reach the Orient by sailing west from Greece.