Politics - why are we so divided?

A while ago I wrote this to try to understand why people who love and respect each other and have the best intentions can differ so markedly in their political views:

For years I have been astounded by the fact that people I love and respect can have such profoundly different political views than I have.  How can this be?  Discarding the tempting conclusion that I am simply a lot smarter and perceptive than they are, I have come to believe that the true differences between conservatives and liberals are more subtle and less dramatic than one would expect.  Somewhere in the process of taking concrete, basic values and abstracting them to larger political, social and economic concepts, we sprint off on very different paths.

Most of the people I know have similar core values.  They believe in hard work, a high moral and ethical standard, honesty and compassion.  On a micro level, the stereotypes for liberals and conservatives don’t really apply.  Many of the conservatives I know are involved in humanitarian projects and are, by all indications, compassionate, caring individuals.  Likewise, the liberals I know are hard-working, motivated people who value the marketplace and recognize the joy of accomplishment and success.

The divergence in beliefs comes when we consider the imperfection of human nature and its consequences, and it becomes more pronounced in the type of idealized societal scenario we are inclined to believe is possible.  In essence, whether you are a conservative or a liberal comes down to which human frailty you consider the most dangerous or pernicious! 

Conservatives focus on the slothful nature of mankind, the fact that humans will avoid work and take advantage of the work of others if given the opportunity.  They believe the biggest threat to society is indolence, and that the energetic and motivated must drive the progress of civilization, or stagnation and paralysis will result.

Liberals interpret the fallibility of human nature with a different slant.  They fear the basic human qualities of greed and avarice, and are convinced that the corrupting nature of wealth and power must be offset in some fashion to avoid gross inequities and the polarization of society.

Clearly both of these criticisms of human nature are valid.  It is not unreasonable to view the whole progress of the economic, social and political aspects of civilization as a balancing act between these two sets of human weaknesses.

For what is capitalism but the recognition that human progress is best fueled by competition among men and women?  Even the most ardent conservative and capitalist will have to concede that competition, with its propensity for dividing the world into winners and losers, and its potential for inflicting great tragedy and disappointment on those losers, is a means to an end that has manifold flaws.  But what liberal can argue that there is a more effective economic system than capitalism? 

An interesting corollary to the cynicism of these views is the passion we all have for idealistic, utopian models for society.  These models tend to portray the world in very black and white terms, causing reverential and passionate allegiance on one side and eye-rolling dismissal on the other.  The writings and envisioned utopias of Ayn Rand and Karl Marx come to mind.  What liberal does not smirk in contempt at the “Who is John Galt” bumper sticker, and the Pavlovian response of the conservative to the word “socialism” has almost become quaint.

The world is no perfect place, nor will it ever become one.  Anyone trying to create the perfect balance of income distribution and economic regulation with free market dynamism is faced with two sobering realities at the margins:  the greed and powerful manipulations of some of the rich and privileged, and the sloth and opportunism of some at the lower end of the scale of human activity.

How can one create an effective safety net for those upon whom misfortune has truly fallen and not also create an opportunity for the lazy to avoid hard work or responsibility?  How can one minimize the regulations and restrictions for business and still avoid the cronyism, insider trading, market manipulation and outright corruption that tempt even the most ethical?

Perhaps if we started out recognizing the basic contradictions and irreconcilable attributes of human nature that condemn any socioeconomic system to at best a discouraging compromise, then we could discover a more tolerant approach to grappling with policy issues.