Two thoughts: one must recognize that most people politically opposed to you are doing so in good faith with an approximation of a consistent ethic. Very few people vote to intentionally undermine a common good.
Personality and value traits related to political alignment matter and are relatively deep seated. Specifically, openness and va…
Two thoughts: one must recognize that most people politically opposed to you are doing so in good faith with an approximation of a consistent ethic. Very few people vote to intentionally undermine a common good.
Personality and value traits related to political alignment matter and are relatively deep seated. Specifically, openness and valuing authority/loyalty. If you view the classroom as a place to openly explore ideas vs viewing the teacher as an authority, you get very different takes on what and how things should be taught. The whole notion that one racial group has social debt to anther racial group because of historical injustice is fairly philosophically loaded; if you're values are individualistic (I am not) this is a complete nonstarter.
I guess my point is that difference are real, not ignorance or stupidity, and they are in good faith. There is plenty of common ground to be found in policy, without fully bridging philosophical gaps: you can get Evangelicals and conservative Catholics to agree on environmental policy (as a biblical mandate) but you won't convince them "humanity is the disease" or other hard left framings. Similarly pro-life/pro-choice folks can find commonality in supporting early childhood support and aggressive prosecution of rape. By minding the ideological gap, you can progress on policy. Dismissing idea generally stems from dismissing the value framework other citizens are operating from.
Two thoughts: one must recognize that most people politically opposed to you are doing so in good faith with an approximation of a consistent ethic. Very few people vote to intentionally undermine a common good.
Personality and value traits related to political alignment matter and are relatively deep seated. Specifically, openness and valuing authority/loyalty. If you view the classroom as a place to openly explore ideas vs viewing the teacher as an authority, you get very different takes on what and how things should be taught. The whole notion that one racial group has social debt to anther racial group because of historical injustice is fairly philosophically loaded; if you're values are individualistic (I am not) this is a complete nonstarter.
I guess my point is that difference are real, not ignorance or stupidity, and they are in good faith. There is plenty of common ground to be found in policy, without fully bridging philosophical gaps: you can get Evangelicals and conservative Catholics to agree on environmental policy (as a biblical mandate) but you won't convince them "humanity is the disease" or other hard left framings. Similarly pro-life/pro-choice folks can find commonality in supporting early childhood support and aggressive prosecution of rape. By minding the ideological gap, you can progress on policy. Dismissing idea generally stems from dismissing the value framework other citizens are operating from.