Originally written 2016. Updated.
We have all heard American Republicans and Democrats speak of each other with rancor. It is especially tragic when we realize both “sides” want the same things; fairness, peace, health, prosperity, a strong WiFi signal, freedom, security, sex, pizza, and happiness [I’m talking about the humans, not the politicians]. We merely have different ideas about how to get there.
Trigger warning: I’m going to generalize about both “teams” in order to make a point
Team Left
(recent past and now)
Team Left believes in freedom for all – but they know better for people with regard to protecting them from poverty, starvation, ignorance, discrimination, hurt feelings, and bad health. How do they get around the exception? Like the Team Right, they too, might call it “morality” or “pragmatism”.
From their perspective, it is the moral thing to sacrifice the product of your labor in order to have the beneficial ends they strive for. But who chooses what those ends are and who chooses whom to take from and whom to give to? “The ends justify the means” is a dangerous idea to base policy on. The pragmatism can often be the result of seeking a “practical” solution that works for the here and now but ignores far-ranging effects.
The simplified version: “You are free to do what you want with your body but not your words or property.”
UPDATE: In recent years, Team Left has become more authoritarian in the name of the above justifications. “You are responsible for the health of others and we are responsible for your health. To bring balance to an unbalanced system, we will judge by skin color and gender.”
Team Right
(recent past and now)
Team Right believes in freedom for all – except that people need forced guidance and protection from some or all of the following: drugs, the “wrong” religions, sex (same sex relations and prostitution), pregnancy issues, and “foreign terrorists”. IMPORTANT: See “Update” at the bottom.
So that “freedom… but…” is an exception. How do they account for this exception? Different conservatives may have different answers. From “just being practical (or pragmatic)” to “morality”. Sometimes that morality comes from “the word of God” and sometimes “It’s just what is right and good.” We may ask, “Who chooses what is right?” The pragmatism usually comes from the same thought processes Team Left goes through when seeking solutions.
Let’s simplify: “You are free to do what you want with your words and property but not your body.”
UPDATE: In recent years, a growing number of Team Right proponents seem to have become less authoritarian with regard to acceptance around sexuality, non-prescription drugs, practice of differing religions, and war.
Why is that a paradox perpetuated by both teams? Because you own your body, which means you own what you do with and to your body, as well as that which is produced by your body. Contradictions to this principle are detrimental to individuals – thus groups, being that groups are made up of individuals – and unsustainable.
Both of those points of view share the idea that it is okay to take people’s property against their will or otherwise control people (coercion) in order to fund the team’s favorite kind of “protection”. I ask you to look through your beliefs and see that both “sides” want similar things (health, happiness, and prosperity) and both put forth “solutions” that rely on coercion.
Guess what? It is possible to work toward a world where we do not legitimize coercion of any kind. This article and the videos there show a few of many potential well worked-out solutions.
Which means
If you are a Republican or Democrat, you want the same thing as those you deride, with your only differences being the methodologies you prefer!
Also, you are both willing to give up some of your own freedom and sacrifice the freedom of others in order to enact your favorite means to achieve those ends. Whatever “team” you are on, you support a system allowing for exceptions and contradictions to your principles and both are intolerant of those with differing views:
“We want you to be free to do what you want with your body BUT not your words and property/ money, which we know better than you how to use.”
vs.
“We want you to be free to do what you want with your words and property/ money BUT not your body, which we know better how you should use.”
Modern examples
Here are a couple examples of the hypocrisy of both teams:
Team Left hypocrisy
Principle: Adam Schiff has frequently emphasized the importance of the rule of law, notably during his tenure as a House Intelligence Committee Chairman and in his Senate campaign, where he positioned himself as a defender of legal accountability.
Contradiction: Schiff undermined the rule of law by promoting unverified claims during the Trump-Russia investigation. For instance, he repeatedly asserted he had evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia, claims later undermined by lack of proof. His 2023 House censure by Republicans for misleading the public. His acceptance of a preemptive pardon from President Biden in January 2025, inconsistent with his public stance on legal accountability, implying he sought protection from potential prosecution rather than facing legal scrutiny head-on.
Team Right hypocrisy
Principle: During his joint address to Congress in March 2025, Trump explicitly claimed, “I’ve stopped all government censorship and brought back free speech in America. It’s back.” Free speech means allowing even those we disagree with to have their say.
Contradiction: On March 8, 2025, Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate student and legal permanent resident was arrested for helping lead pro-Palestinian (and alleged pro-Hamas) protests, and Trump took credit for the arrest. So far, the only evidence against Khalil is organizing protests and social media activity.
On March 25, 2025, Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish graduate student at Tufts University was arrested. Full story here.
Pragmatic vs. Principled
“There is no dichotomy between being principled and practical. If your principles aren’t practical, they’re useless. If you attempt to be practical without guidance from principles, you’ll ultimately fail.”
~ A random objectivist
Systems such as the political left and right propose [attempts at] what they see as pragmatic or “practical” solutions, as opposed to principled. On the surface that may sound effective.
Back to the pragmatic: Without an underlying principle to tie solutions together with integrity, a system becomes a never-ending stream of problems-and-bandaids, often contradicting itself and quickly becoming unfair, inefficient, and… impractical, because it doesn’t work. Something going wrong? Patch it! See the irony? Furthermore, without the “glue” principles can provide, followers of pragmatism fall prey to internal strife.
These kind of systems tend to promote “surfacey” quick fix solutions, often leaving out the following factors:
(a) Time;
(b) Cost;
(c) Relationships to other solutions;
(d) Setting precedent;
(e) Effects on all individuals (in energy/wealth, safety/health, and freedom); and
(f) Looking “up” at the big picture and “down” at the underlying causes.
When a system is made up of parts, it is important to look at the relationships between the parts when deciding whether a part is “practical”. That is where a “map” comes in handy to check each part against. That “map” is principles.
For a deeper dive into pragmatic vs principled: https://clearsay.net/pragmatic-vs-principled
Are there better ways?
Then there is the demonizing; the lack of understanding from both sides. Is it possible to understand the motivations of the other team? I say yes, it is.
On the left it is ignored or not even recognized that Team Right is actually thinking about the future and the good of people just as much as the other team is. A difference (and potential departure from principles) being the conservative may limit that caring to a specific group (“my family,” “my region,” “my nation”). This is called “chauvinism.”
Team Left extrapolates into the future and worries chauvinism can turn into sexism and racism. Some say it is already here.
And yet, one might argue that the Team Right tends to think more about wide-reaching and/or future effects, while the other team tends to think more about what is happening right now. “Damn the costs! That person is suffering and needs help right now!”
“You must hire, educate, support that person” departs from freedom to choose and freedom of association / disassociation.
Team right may extrapolate into the future and worry that this can set a precedent for government control of who we are friends with or date.
What if both “sides” were to look at the other and say, “I appreciate your compassion for people who are disadvantaged. I feel the same way. I merely disagree with your method of how to best help those people.”
Why is that so hard? Here’s a reason: Both sides look at the other and – maybe subconsciously – realize that other side is cheering [voting] for coercion [laws] to be enacted against their team using money taken from them [taxes].
What if Lefties need Righties to remind them about the importance of the future and respect for individuality while Righties need to learn about the value of the present and relationships from Lefties?
To go deeper with compassion for the “other team,” we can explore what values and needs may typically underlie their positions:
Liberal (Contextualist)
- Choice
- Community & Support
- Connection
- Fairness
- Inclusion
- Safety
Conservative (Absolutist)
- Autonomy
- Individuality
- Integrity
- Clarity
- Purity
- Security
Like Yin and Yang, it is easy to see how both positions are equivalent and necessary.
More on Absolutists/Contextualists here.
Do we need to be forced?
Do we really need government to force us to give and to work together peacefully for common goals? Most people have a natural desire to give. We also have a natural desire to organize and work together so that we can specialize. We see the efficiency inherent in cooperation. We don’t have to be forced to cooperate. It naturally occurs!
Forced transactions have a winner and loser. Voluntary transactions have two winners because both chose the transaction because they saw benefit for themselves in it.
“But not everyone is unwilling to use coercion to get what they want! You seem to assume the opposite. How do you protect the doves from the hawks?”
This is an important question! Voluntaryists do believe in protection for the “weak” or vulnerable. Actually, protection for everyone who wants it! Here are some practical solutions to the seeming paradox.
We hear so much from Team Left about the greed of Team Right, it is almost a cliche. Rarely will a Leftie believe that a Rightie would actually give to charities if he is allowed to keep the money he makes. “They despise the poor as lazy and would force them to starve.” I propose that the average “right winger” looks at the poor and feels the same amount of human sadness as the “left winger” because, yeah, we are all humans. The difference is in preference of solutions. So, speaking of solutions…
Parenting & Pain
Think parents and the range of how they treat their children. Some will attempt to fix every discomfort and problem for their children for a short term gain of harmony, comfort, the satisfaction of nurturing, or safety from real or imagined threats.
Others will stop and ask themselves, “Is the thing happening/about to happen going to damage my child or merely give him/her a valuable lesson? Should I wait a bit before interfering and see what he/she does to solve their own problem?”
Both of the parenting solutions above are from moms and dads who care deeply for their children and want the best for them. Do you think the more “conservative” parent’s motive is to selfishly save their energy by not interfering? I propose they are often just as eager to “save” their child from that skinned knee they see coming but they are biting their lip and holding back because they know:
We must all experience pain in order to grow and learn compassion for the pain of others. “Saving” others from their pain is often costly in more than one way, including depriving the “victim” the opportunity to save themselves.
More on these ideas around parenting: https://clearsay.net/are-kids-getting-enough-hardship-inoculation
“But what can I do, personally?”
Investigate Libertarianism or even Voluntaryism. They are principled approaches to politics. Tolerant, too. You can accept other ways without condoning them.
Here are a couple ways you can begin:
If you like this article, please comment and share to your favorite social media! Think MeWe, Hive, Minds, Parler, Odysee (the “A Practical EmPath” system), Odysee (Voluntaryism), Titter, Fakebook, etc.
Bonus fun; read this:
The past several months have made one thing clear: Our country faces disaster if the Other Team wins.
No reasonably intelligent person can deny that. All you have to do is look at the way the Other Team has been speaking and acting. Instead of focusing on the issues that are important to the People, their Team has continued to fire a barrage of distortions, misrepresentations, and lies.
Just look at the Other Team’s latest public statements, which take a reasonable statement by the candidate for My Team out of context to make it seem as if they are saying something immoral. This shows how desperate the Other Team is and how willing it is to mislead the People.
The Other Team even has the gall to accuse My Team of being authoritarian, sexist, and racist, when they are the ones obviously embracing methods and speech born of ignorance and fear. This shows you what a bunch of hypocrites their Team is.
Recent Comments