It's a gross generalization and reduction, but I think I've observed a pretty distinct, fundamental disagreement that more or less explains the divide between Left and Right wing beliefs about systems created by the government. This applies to basically every average person, whom I believe generally want the world to be a better place, and not those who have interests entirely disconnected with the betterment of life for average people, such as the rich and powerful.
Left: "I want to create a system that helps everyone who needs it, even if that means some people will abuse it."
Right: "I want to create a system that no one can abuse, even if that means some people who need it cannot access it."
The fundamental split lies here, whether it's more important that everyone gets what they need or whether no one gets what they do not need.
Of course, in a perfect world, we can create a system that helps everyone who needs it AND prevents anyone from abusing it, but since that's not the case, we must pick one of the two sides of an imperfect system - to allow some abuse to help everyone OR to allow no abuse at the cost of some being left out.
While the government itself, with it's deep roots in corruption and personal interests might not abide by this split perfectly, the fundamental ideological split between the Left and the Right should be in this. I think it should be applicable to any hot topic issue today, at the very least:
Voting - "It's ok for the system to have some leaks/errors as long as everyone eligible gets to participate" vs "No fraudulent votes should ever be counted, even if it means some eligible people don't get to vote" where the ideal is "everyone eligible gets to participate AND no fraudulent votes exist"
Welfare - "It's ok if there are some who would falsely claim welfare as long as everyone who needs it gets it" vs "No one should be allowed to claim welfare they don't deserve, even if it means some people who deserve it don't get it" where the ideal is "everyone who needs welfare gets it and no one can falsely claim welfare"
Gender - "We should respect everyone's self expression, even if some people will lie to gain an advantage in life" vs "We should make sure no one can gain an advantage by lying, even if it means some people don't get to be themselves" where the ideal is "everyone knows everyone's gender and no one can lie"
...And so on.
Plus whatever is needed on a surface level to rationalize/justify these respective positions as more being more correct than the other, such as religion, empathy, justice, or some other kind of logical framework.
It's not nearly a perfect explanation, and it may even actually just be a framing thing in my mind, but this is just something I've noticed.
But while everyone constantly fights over this split, we seem to fail to try to even approach the ideal of achieving both. Both sides, understandably, bitterly refuse to compromise because moving towards the perfect ideal involves first moving away from their own position. In the meanwhile, those whose interests lie entirely outside of the wellbeing of the average person take massive advantage of this ideological split and pit people against one another while making off with anything and everything they can take. When life inevitably becomes worse for both sides because the rich and powerful used the conflict to pilfer from them, they blame one another instead of those actually at fault.
Left: "I want to create a system that helps everyone who needs it, even if that means some people will abuse it."
Right: "I want to create a system that no one can abuse, even if that means some people who need it cannot access it."
The fundamental split lies here, whether it's more important that everyone gets what they need or whether no one gets what they do not need.
Of course, in a perfect world, we can create a system that helps everyone who needs it AND prevents anyone from abusing it, but since that's not the case, we must pick one of the two sides of an imperfect system - to allow some abuse to help everyone OR to allow no abuse at the cost of some being left out.
While the government itself, with it's deep roots in corruption and personal interests might not abide by this split perfectly, the fundamental ideological split between the Left and the Right should be in this. I think it should be applicable to any hot topic issue today, at the very least:
Voting - "It's ok for the system to have some leaks/errors as long as everyone eligible gets to participate" vs "No fraudulent votes should ever be counted, even if it means some eligible people don't get to vote" where the ideal is "everyone eligible gets to participate AND no fraudulent votes exist"
Welfare - "It's ok if there are some who would falsely claim welfare as long as everyone who needs it gets it" vs "No one should be allowed to claim welfare they don't deserve, even if it means some people who deserve it don't get it" where the ideal is "everyone who needs welfare gets it and no one can falsely claim welfare"
Gender - "We should respect everyone's self expression, even if some people will lie to gain an advantage in life" vs "We should make sure no one can gain an advantage by lying, even if it means some people don't get to be themselves" where the ideal is "everyone knows everyone's gender and no one can lie"
...And so on.
Plus whatever is needed on a surface level to rationalize/justify these respective positions as more being more correct than the other, such as religion, empathy, justice, or some other kind of logical framework.
It's not nearly a perfect explanation, and it may even actually just be a framing thing in my mind, but this is just something I've noticed.
But while everyone constantly fights over this split, we seem to fail to try to even approach the ideal of achieving both. Both sides, understandably, bitterly refuse to compromise because moving towards the perfect ideal involves first moving away from their own position. In the meanwhile, those whose interests lie entirely outside of the wellbeing of the average person take massive advantage of this ideological split and pit people against one another while making off with anything and everything they can take. When life inevitably becomes worse for both sides because the rich and powerful used the conflict to pilfer from them, they blame one another instead of those actually at fault.
