Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12
Partisan politics is by definition on argument over morality, if it isn't, well then it is just bureaucratic technocracy. An argument of favour of that is still a moral one.
|
I don't think that's always the case.
For example, on the right people believe that what's good for the economy is on the long run good for everybody.
Thus for them, welfare is a short term solution to a long term problem. They tend to see it as counterproductive, as it increases taxes (which they also believe is bad for the economy) and makes people less eager to look for new jobs (which is also bad for the economy and bad for the people themselves). By that logic, cutting welfare benefits is actually for the good of the poor.
On the left they tend to think that an improved economy is not automatically beneficial for everybody, that you need to move money from the rich to the poor through taxation or the poor will be left behind. Plus the poor just need money to keep to stay sane and healthy and not turn to crime, which is important if they're supposed to find jobs one day.
As another example, let's take the question of integrating immigrants into a new country. A left wing politician might demand that the immigrants be allowed to use their own language in all sorts of situations, because he believes that it makes the immigrants feel welcome and part of the society, and thus integrate more easily.
A right wing politician might argue that it's better to force them to learn the local language, because only through that will they ever truly integrate.
So you can easily have two people who have the exact same moral goals but fundamentally different views on how the world works, and thus completely different political views across the board.
(Btw, I believe that both sides in both examples have relevant points, but I side with the left in wellfare and with the right in the language thing.)