From Wikipedia: Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding conflicting ideas simultaneously.
This struck me as I was mowing the lawn last night. Something that has bothered me for a long time is the natural contradiction found in today's prevailing political groups. The "conservative" group pounds the table for individual freedom, yet typically jumps in first whenever a restrictive new law is proposed (anything from gay marriage and abortion to no-smoking ordinances and "blue laws"). How can a group supposedly so grounded in "freedom" quickly support measures that would appear to limit its expression?
And on the other side, the "liberal" political group pounds the table for individual freedom, yet leads the charge for restrictive tax policies, government oversight of industry, and compulsory "public" service. How can a group that claims to celebrate individuality and acceptance attach itself to authoritarian measures?
This is cognitive dissonance. You cannot support restriction and freedom at the same time, yet seemingly both major political groups in this country are happy to do just that. How did we get to this state? Is one side more "correct" than the other? Is there a "better" viewpoint?
After ruminating on this for a while, I believe I have the key. It's a question of ownership. Most everyone, whether liberal or conservative, would agree with this statement: "I should be free to do what I want with what is mine." The difference comes in what groups believe is personally owned.
Conservatives believe that you own "stuff". Things like money, time, and cars are personal to a conservative. But conservatives don't believe you own people, not even yourself. Therefore, you should have the freedom to do what you like with "stuff", but not with others, even yourself.
Liberals take the opposite view. They believe that "stuff" is shared. Nobody "owns" things like land or water, but must share it. Conversely, they believe that everyone owns him/herself, and should be free to do what they want with their own self and anyone else willing to join them.
How did these opposing viewpoints originate? I believe the conservative viewpoint originated from the simple idea that human life is the pinnacle of creation. All the other stuff in the universe is secondary, and can be used however individual humans wish. Stuff may be assigned to individual people as they see fit, and there's nothing at all wrong with one person having more stuff than another. As the most precious item in existence, however, individual humans are too valuable to risk doing anything that might adversely affect their well-being. So freedom with stuff is perfectly fine, but freedom with individual human activity must be monitored closely. This viewpoint corresponds nicely with (and largely derives from) the traditional belief that God created man to rule the earth.
The liberal viewpoint originates from the idea that all of creation is equivalent (or at least roughly so). The only "stuff" that we can own is the bodies we've been given. We can do whatever we want to our own self, and we can engage others so long as they are willing. But other stuff can only be "borrowed", and it's against the natural order of things for somebody to use more than "their share" of general resources. So freedom to do whatever with yourself is fine, but anything involving outside stuff must be monitored closely. This viewpoint corresponds nicely with the belief that the universe is just a random grouping of particles.
With this, I believe we've answered the question of "how did we get into this state." People (largely, I'm not talking about each and every individual thinker on earth) generally base their political leaning on how they view the universe. Is it a design with humans at the top? Is it a random collection of particles with no defined hierarchy? That leaves the questions of which view is more "correct", and is there a "better" view. I'll tackle those questions next time.
