Red family, blue family
The article points out that both liberals and conservatives tend to frame the government-citizen relationship as one of family, but they have different models for family. Conservatives tend to see family as a network of inherited obligations, where the freedom to choose not to fulfill your obligations is a bad thing. Liberals tend to see family as a collection of voluntary commitments.
It was a fascinating read. It's also interesting to note that I'm right smack on the dividing line between the two. I have inherited obligations that i will not shirk, up to a point. That is, if neither of my sisters is in a position to look after my dad when he needs it, I'll step up to the plate - but not far enough to actually have him in my home. He's family, and we'll take care of him. My mom does that for my grandparents. My MIL does that for Aunt Amy and Uncle Frank - Aunt Amy is actually her father's cousin. I have no doubt that I will spend a good portion of my life meeting those inherited obligations, and I'm absolutely fine with that. At the same time, I run my life much more on the chosen commitments model. The friends with whom I surround myself are not my friends because we all grew up in the same church, they're my friends because we have things in common. I chose a limited family of no more than three kids, and I subscribe to the belief that the nurturing I give them is more of a gift than an investment. I hope they'll reciprocate and care for me when I'm old, but they are not really under an obligation to do so.
As I said, fascinating read for anyone interested in politics and political discourse.
Thanks
neosis for the link.
The article points out that both liberals and conservatives tend to frame the government-citizen relationship as one of family, but they have different models for family. Conservatives tend to see family as a network of inherited obligations, where the freedom to choose not to fulfill your obligations is a bad thing. Liberals tend to see family as a collection of voluntary commitments.
It was a fascinating read. It's also interesting to note that I'm right smack on the dividing line between the two. I have inherited obligations that i will not shirk, up to a point. That is, if neither of my sisters is in a position to look after my dad when he needs it, I'll step up to the plate - but not far enough to actually have him in my home. He's family, and we'll take care of him. My mom does that for my grandparents. My MIL does that for Aunt Amy and Uncle Frank - Aunt Amy is actually her father's cousin. I have no doubt that I will spend a good portion of my life meeting those inherited obligations, and I'm absolutely fine with that. At the same time, I run my life much more on the chosen commitments model. The friends with whom I surround myself are not my friends because we all grew up in the same church, they're my friends because we have things in common. I chose a limited family of no more than three kids, and I subscribe to the belief that the nurturing I give them is more of a gift than an investment. I hope they'll reciprocate and care for me when I'm old, but they are not really under an obligation to do so.
As I said, fascinating read for anyone interested in politics and political discourse.
Thanks
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)