Jan 21, 2017 4 min read

I am always amazed by the divergence of thought and desired solutions to today’s social, economic and political concerns between liberals and conservatives.

When I reached the age where I could vote, I registered as a Democrat because that was what you did. Not until college did I read “A Time for Truth,” a 1978 book by William E. Simon, who served as treasury secretary in the administrations of Richard Nixon and Gerald Ford. As I read the pages of his treatise, I found that I agreed with him. His arguments did not convince me to change my mind, because I found out that I already viewed the world as he did. I was a Republican, not a Democrat, and immediately changed my registration.

In the many years since my discovery of conservatism, I have wondered what differentiates liberals from conservatives. Not on issues, for the media in all forms are filled with their differences of opinion, but what in terms of childhood development, influences, or education creates liberals and conservatives.

I have many friends and colleagues from all walks of life. They are good people who want the same things I want. We are seeking a peaceful life, liberty, employment, justice, fair play, and we want our children to grow and flourish. I have had many discussion with my friends about social and economic issues. We all deal with the same facts, and we agree on the desired outcomes. But when we discuss how to achieve these outcomes, we have differences.

Why the diametrically opposed views? How does that happen and why? I read “Reason: Why Liberals Will Win the Battle for America” by Robert Reich, a secretary of labor under President Bill Clinton. I wanted to understand the liberal mindset and what indeed separated me from them.

My conclusion? Reich seemed to want everything that I wanted. I was encouraged as I read the book, until I reached his conclusions. And therein lies the rub. We seemed to disagree on the process to achieve the desired outcomes. Either that, or we had very different definitions of the goals we were seeking.

But, again, I ask: Where do these differences in outlook come from? What deep, core behaviors or beliefs do we hold as liberals or conservatives that allow us to take the same facts and render different conclusions? I am dismissing all the mean-spirited and ignorant rants that either side is defective or mentally ill. These responses come from an inability to make a clear argument.

My conclusion rests on whether you believe mankind is inherently good or inherently evil. If mankind is good, then individuals have the capacity to regulate desires and act independently, yet be in harmony with a group. Individuals and their independence are supreme.

If you feel man is inherently evil, then you believe controls and regulations must be put in place so that the group is not harmed. The group is the most important aspect of society, and must be preserved regardless of individual desires.

I am not passing judgment on either outlook, but only seeking to explore the differences in them. I believe we can hold different opinions and explore solutions to our problems and still remain friends. It is my wish that we can come together as Americans and address our problems truthfully and honorably.

The Founding Fathers said it best after they debated, disagreed and finally wrote the Declaration of Independence: “We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.”

Flickinger is the president of Tom Flickinger & Associates, Inc., a management consulting firm.