Anthropology and the Avoidance of Polemical Politics

Political and legislative decisions derive from deep values. To argue about political policy decisions (e.g. welfare, immigration, war, business regulations, and campaign finance) is often fruitless, because it doesn't address underlying values. I propose that the values that divide the left and the right are anthropological--that is, related to the assumptions made about human beings.

image by Hal Dodson

Anthropology asks questions about the essence and nature of humankind. What is a human? Where did humans come from? What constitutes a human? The question at hand here is: What is the nature of humanity? Is the human nature basically good or basically evil? I think how one answers this question has enormous influence upon whether a person leans liberal or conservative. [There are many other contributing factors, I'm sure, but discussing at least one underlying value is more fruitful than bickering about a million policy decisions.]

There doesn't seem to be any disagreement on the fact that the current state of human affairs is not good. We have murderers, rapists, thieves, terrorists, drug dealers, crooked Wall Street executives, shady politicians, sex slaves, prostitution, domestic abuse, unwanted babies, etc... The questions is, how did people get to be this way and how do we fix it? Both sides of the political spectrum do want to fix it.

A person who believes that human beings are basically sinful would mostly likely come to the conclusion that people are messed up simply because they have willfully responded to the lustful call of their own wicked hearts. Therefore, we must all take blame and responsibility for our own problems. Expecting the government to "bail you out" (as it would be characterized) is the height of presumptuous entitlement. Of course, "government" means everyone else's tax dollars. Also, not all people give in to the call of the wicked hearts to the same degree. Some have a higher degree of self-control. Ultimately, all people have to transcend their own lusts and make moral decisions. The conservative assumes both that human nature is inherently sinful and that every human being has a transcendent free will, which may overcome the inevitable impulses of the heart. Expecting those who have done a better job of governing their lusts to support those who have not comes across as simply unfair and unjust.

On the other hand, the person who believes that human beings are basically good explains the messed up state of human affairs differently. They assume that you were born either good or, at the very least, neutral with regard to an impulse to sin. Humans self-destruct in sin, not because they are ontologically flawed (as the conservative believes), but because they have been corrupted by the world around them. The liberal believes that, if you redeem the corrupt society, you will subsequently redeem the individual by allowing his inherently good nature to flourish. On the farthest left end of the spectrum, this explains the optimism with regard to communism.

So, how does this affect one's political leanings? 

The right sees the problem as lying at the individual level. People need to take responsibility for themselves. They don't need "handouts"; they may need to feel the pain of their own decisions for a while so they can admit there is a problem and fix it. They also need to feel the satisfaction of a paycheck that is earned by one's own sweat. This ultimately makes them a better person. This sort of response to the ills of human society does not require a large government. That is not to say that conservatives have no compassion or grace. It is just that compassion (say, in the form of charity) ought to be an act of the free will, rather than by force of the government. If a person needs assistance due to her own self-destructive behavior, it is simply wrong to force others to help her. 

The left sees the problem as lying in the corrupting influence of a broken social system. Under the assumption that humans are born either good or neutral, this is the only way to explain the obvious sorry state of human affairs. Fixing this requires a large centralized government that has the resources and authority to provide social safety nets and to fix flawed social structures (e.g. Wall Street or loose campaign finance regulations). Fix societal structures and institutions and you'll fix people. Because people are essentially good, they will rise to the occasion. The belief that humans are basically good does not mean that liberals lack any or all moral values; many honestly believe that individuals will act morally if they live in a perfected social system.

The reality is that most people lie somewhere between these two poles. I, of course, have not done any scientific polling, but I would not at all be surprised to see that one's placement on the scale (from left to right) is directly proportional to that person's belief in the basic sinfulness of humans. [As stated before, however, there could be higher priority values that trump one's view on human nature. For example, you may believe that humans are inherently good, but still have some higher commitment to the principle of small government, in which case, you would be the exception to the rule. I'm not suggesting this is a hard-and-fast rule but, rather, a general trend.]

I've grown tired of seeing politicians and pundits bicker over countless social and political issues. I want to see a philosophical/theological debate over the nature of human beings. This is more likely to produce some real light and, given the abstract and philosophical nature of it, is less likely to become overheated and polemical. But, then again, that doesn't sell ads on cable news.

Blessings,

Charlie

Note: I have not taken a position publicly and will not. I did not write this to address which political positions you should choose. I wrote it to try to introduce some rationality and peace to what has become a polemical conversation in America.