2020 has been the most eye opening political year for me and I’m sure for many other Americans.
I’ve never been interested in having conversations on politics because we all know these kinds of conversations can go from really fun to really nasty really fast, especially if there’s any alcohol involved. However, I did take a few classes on political philosophy in college. They were super fun and I give these classes a lot of credit for introducing me into the world of understanding human nature and social contracts because that’s where I learned about John Locke and Thomas Hobbes
So what do these 2 dudes have to do with where I stand politically?
Learning about the political philosophies of John Locke and Thomas Hobbes contributes to why I became interested in reading about human nature and why I consider myself to be politically moderate. There are other philosophers that have contributed but I’m pinpointing these two specifically.
John Locke is known as the optimistic philosopher that has influenced the United States Constitution by his “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” and “inalienable rights” philosophy. His philosophy on social contract and human nature pretty much says that people have the ability to be submissive and tolerant in a social contract with authoritative figures, such as the government, in order to preserve their life as long as their basic human rights are not violated (Bill of Rights). Otherwise, it’s ok to overthrow the government with a better one. However, Locke felt optimistic about the goodness in both government officials and the people so there wouldn’t be much overthrowing. And I guess up until this year, I would say he was mostly right.
Then there’s Thomas Hobbes, who is known as a pessimistic philosopher, or what I would consider a realist. His philosophy on social contract and human nature states that protection over life is more important than pursuing liberty because humans are naturally selfish and barbaric no matter what their hierarchal position in life would be. And the more liberty people have, the more greedy they become to get it. Therefore, in order for people to be protected and experience the true liberty in life, there needs to be one ethical sovereign ruler to put people in their place and at the same time to not oppress them. I would say that this philosopher will be replacing Locke’s philosophy in 2020 America, as we can see the many forms of rebellion this year from the lockdowns to police brutality.
So why do I stand as politically moderate?
I stand as politically moderate because I can see the viewpoints from both the conservative side and the liberal side.
This is my understanding of Republicans/Conservatives.
Colonists separated from Great Britain and formed its own independence and such in the Declaration of Independence. Then as its own independent and free entity, in the land we all know as America, it established its own set of rules in the social contract we also know as the United States Constitution.
From the time the Constitution and all its amendments and ratifications up until this day, there have been many Americans that have benefited more than not from this social contract because of what was going on during the time period that this social contract was made into law, which was the late 1700’s. So from the late 1700’s until today in 2020, those who have benefitted from the US Constitution more than not are what we call patriots.
Most, not all, include people who are traditional, religious, non evolutionary, heterosexual, have hierarchal structure within their homes, family, and work life. They pretty much live a comfortable life and don’t judge others by how they live theirs. So there’s really no reason for them to not be good law abiding citizens. I feel this is how many people view as the good traditional American life because there is hierarchy, structure, predictability and stability, which in my opinion, is a good thing.
However, there are the extreme Republicans/Conservatives we know as the right-wing extremists. I consider these people as small minded bullies that probably grew up without experiencing any kind of oppression and restriction in life. Therefore, think that if you don’t comply to their views, or if you are dealing with issues that are out of your control, you’re the problem.
This is my understanding of Democrats/Liberals.
When the US Constitution was made into law in the late 1700’s, there was a bunch of oppression going on. From slavery to lack of women’s rights. So I guess we can say that the Preamble to the US Constitution didn’t apply to all Americans. However, as Locke would say, most people are ok with being submissive and tolerant, which they have been mostly until this year.
These people who are rebelling are those who have not benefited more than not from the Constitution. I guess we can say they are rebels in the same sense as colonists were when they separated from Great Britain.
Most, not all, include people who are revolutionary, nonreligious, LGBTQ, nomads, independent thinkers and have dealt with a fair share of oppression/restrictions during their life due to not being very compatible with the traditional American way of life and therefore, are understanding of others. They are also law abiding citizens but are also interested in changing the law to conform to modern day issues. I feel the liberal life is becoming the new American way of life because of technological evolution, and freedom of expression from oppression, which is also a good thing.
However, there are the extreme Democrats/Liberals we know as the left-wing extremists. I consider these people to be overexaggerating victims that have probably dealt with some form of adversity but taking the victim mentality way too far. Therefore, think that if you’ve never experienced adversity in any kind of severe context, you are privileged.
Even though I didn’t fully elaborate on what I favor on both sides, as that would take me forever and a day, I understand why conservatives want to keep America the way it is and why liberals want to change it.
I definitely feel that police and military are needed in America to sustain order and protect citizens but I also understand not all authoritative figures have good intentions. I also support the 2nd amendment as I feel everyone should be entitled to protect themselves but like police and military, not all citizens have good intentions with the right to bear arms. There are other issues I’m both for and also against, which is why I could never be the President of the United States or any elected official. I’d get criticized equally from both sides.
Anyways, so as much as I don’t agree with statues being destroyed and the riots destroying property, I can’t really get upset about the rebellion (except for the opportunists who are only in it to steal free shit) because I feel that this form of civil war is needed in order to restructure and conform to the new American way of life and to really target the true meaning of freedom. I also feel that this type of civil unrest is a way for democrats to give right-wing extremists a taste of their own oppressive medicine that has been brewing for centuries.