The Difference in the Similarities

Everything is polarized these days: Liberals vs. Conservatives, Republicans vs. Democrats, Black vs. White. We are so busy dividing ourselves into Us vs. Them that we miss out on the many commonalities we share. The truth is, most of us have similar beliefs. We share a similar morality and generally want the same things out of life. We even go about achieving our goals the same way - we get a job, work hard, make friends, fall in love, raise a family, do right by those in our lives. People are more similar than they are different.

But those differences, sometimes just little things, DO matter. Drawing them out can be of utmost importance for a society and the arc of its evolution. Make no mistake, differences matter, but how we talk about them and what we ignore or focus upon guides so much of our conversation.

A case in point: I recently read an interesting article from a self-described pro-life feminist. The thrust of the article was how reasonable and sympathetic she was. That her goals are fundamentally the same as many of the pro-choice camp. In fact, the suggestion was her's were more female-friendly: she wanted to reduce the need for abortion, she recognized that abortions disproportionately affect women of color and therefore are discriminatory. She wanted to help women, and when she explained that to the angry pro-choice protestors she met they were won over by her rationality and given a new understanding of how pro-woman her position really is.

Except it's not. The similarities are there. I agree that abortion is not a good thing. If we can help women avoid facing that incredibly difficult choice then they are likely to be better off, especially the disadvantaged who are most likely to face negative repercussions regardless of the decision they make. We should have a better support system where having a child when you're single, poor, or in other bad circumstances doesn't ruin your chances for a bright future.

But we should also have a support system for those who recognize the reality of the hardships that they will face if they keep their child, for those who know they are not up to the task of carrying a baby to term, much less the years of demanding motherhood to follow. We should have more readily available options for birth control, especially for women, to avoid the situation in the first place. Some anti-abortion proponents might agree with these ideas, but many do not. Many seek to tackle the problem of abortion by making it more of a problem. They want to make it more difficult to get (which means more difficult for the poor - the rich always have options). They want to make it more of a stigma, making the choice more difficult and damning for the woman. They often want to withdraw the support system we have, reduce availability of birth control, and refuse to educate women on their options and responsibilities in general. We all want to reduce abortions, but how we accomplish that is a defining characteristic of who we are as a people.

In her own words, the author of the article slipped in the truth. Alongside all her talk of being pro-woman, all her reasonableness and support for women and understanding of the discriminatory nature of the questions, in one quick aside she laid bared the heart of the difference between those who call themselves pro-life and those who truly support the lives and choices that women are faced with. She said 'The pro-life movement is trying to make legal abortion less available, sure, but ...'. The but doesn't matter. All the talk about all the other good stuff doesn't matter. At its heart, the pro-life movement is trying to limit the legal right of women to choose for themselves, knowing full well who those limitations will hurt the most.

Maybe we should focus more on the agreement - it would be great if pro-lifers supported programs that reduced unwanted pregnancies (like cheap access to effective birth control which Planned Parenthood provides), fought for greater paid leave for new parents, were willing to pay for a better education system that would increase the options for the poorest among us and create a stronger safety net for all women at every level. But the fundamental difference exists, and if you condemn those who do not believe what you believe and deny them the right to act upon it, if you admit that right yet fight against it, you undermine everything you say you stand for. Stop trying to tell the other side what to believe and spend more time actually supporting women in a way that makes sense, and I bet you'd find the difference is still there, but far less potent than it currently is.

Biting the Hand that Feeds

It's a common theme amount salt-of-the-earth types that the people who work the land for their livelihood would all be just fine if the government would only get out of their way, stop persecuting them, and leave them to their own devices. They'd be able to support themselves and their family and at the same time would be the best stewards of the environment. The evil government has ruined their world and the only solution is to remove it entirely. It's pure bullshit.

The truth is that the government is the only thing that allows them to exist. If not for government subsidies on water, disaster relief for severe weather phenomena, and price supports built in to agriculture, the small family farm wouldn't have a chance. And the truth is that society doesn't really want it - what we want is cheap and plentiful food, and the way to get that is through factory farming. There's a reason there aren't many blacksmiths or ferriers making a good living these days. Times change, normally for the better, and some jobs and industries get left behind as we advance. That's as it should be.

And more truth: the past wasn't any easier. I don't believe there has ever been a time when earning a living by raising animals or growing crops was an easy and bountiful option. That's not because of the government, it's simple economics. When land was cheap, those who found ways to own lots of it and farm out the labor to others are the ones who got rich. Before our current era of corporate farms we had land barons, and the average family suffered under their control just as surely and likely more cruelly than anything the government has done since. If you remove the government from the equation - take away the cheap grazing land the BLM provides, the huge expense of water storage and irrigation supported through public works - and the family farm would be ruthlessly eliminated as an inefficient player in the market. That's how it was in the past.

So the government, in spite of its fallible nature, in spite of its burdensome regulations and overzealous pursuit of disparate goals, is the famliy farm's best benefactor. But it isn't their friend. It shouldn't be. The government's role is not to prop up a small group of people's economic interest. The government is there to manage public resources in a way that best serves the nation as a whole, and while that may include making sure that food is inexpensive and reliable for the masses, it also includes making sure that those resources are not used up, destroyed, or contaminated. It requires we preserve some wilderness for future generations and protect the environment in a way that might not prioritize immediate economics of the local over long-term benefit to the many. The government is how we as a people allocate our resources and if they dont' like it there's a process for making change - it's called voting.

I put family cattle ranchers in the same boat as coal miners. They seem like good people. I'm sure they work very hard to eek a living off the earth and it's probably all they know, all they want to do. I understand their fear and anger that their way of life is disappearing and I feel sorry for them. But I also realize that we as a society are better off without such jobs. That working people hard to pull carbon from the ground or raise an inefficient food source like beef, which requires so much water and land to deliver a not-particularly healthy food source, is not in our best interest. The effort and ethic they put into their work is indeed noble; the work itself is not. There are better ways to use our resources, including the labor of such fine folk, and while they may not want to make that change, it is in all of our best interest if they do.