Not too long ago, I wrote about a Facebook meme that has gained great popularity with preparations for the election heating up in the United States right now. The meme compares people who are more left-leaning – “liberals” – with more right-wing individuals – “conservatives.”
In Canada, I think we’re a bit more familiar with these labels than some Americans might be. Our two most powerful political parties just happen to be the Liberals and the Conservatives. They aren’t an exact match for American political parties. But if I had to give a rough equivalency, I’d say the Liberals are like Democrats in the US; Conservatives would be much closer to the Republicans.
As I said in the first part of this discussion, a lot of folks on Facebook get a giggle from sharing a meme that claims to represent the difference between liberals and conservatives. Each part of the meme describes a situation a conservative might find himself in, and then it describes how he’d react. And then the meme goes on to say how a liberal would react under the same circumstances.
Of course, it’s meant to just be funny. And most people either shared it because they thought it was – or passed on by because they thought it was silly to stereotype pretty much the entire populace. That’s how most of us would react but this time, I chose to speak up because of how much political invective I’ve seen tossed about on Facebook recently. The usual grumbling has turned very ugly over the past few weeks as we near the beginning of the actual election campaign. There is a lot of dislike for both the Democratic and Republican candidates, and this is helping to stir up the hostilities.
But why respond? Well, because it’s important not to allow ourselves to be silenced when another person or group disagrees with our beliefs. Over the past few months, I’ve seen a lot of finger-pointing towards liberals. I’ve heard a lot of conservatives trashing everyone from President Obama to Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. I’ve even witnessed very sweet, loving people turn ugly because they can’t take a similar joke when it’s targeted at Donald Trump.
Years of experience have taught me that censorship is much more likely to come out of a conservative camp, as are laws designed to limit individual rights and freedoms. But this Facebook meme baits liberals by essentially saying that if anyone should dare to respond to its message instead of blindly agreeing or passing on by, that person must be a crybaby. What better way to ensure the silence of anyone who finds your message inaccurate, biased, or just plain bigoted.
In my previous post, I looked at issues such as censorship, gun control, and freedom of religion. I saved the discussion of social programming for last because this is an area that is so central to the Canadian identity. And it’s something that a large number of Americans want, despite there being others who feel it’s just a hand-out to have a social network that can help people with the cost of health care, and other basic necessities.
The Facebook meme makes out that conservatives are rugged individualists who just look for creative solutions if they fall on hard times or can’t afford to see the doctor. And of course, liberals are portrayed as entitled freeloaders who expect the rest of society to foot the bill for their basic needs.
Forgetting for a moment that public schools and roads, curbside recycling and garbage pick-up, snow removal, emergency services like 911, public transportation, and Social Security are all tax-funded programs that involve the redistribution of wealth, I just have to say that as a Canadian I fully support having a social welfare safety net. So maybe the judgment levelled against us liberals is fair on this one count.
I believe in universal health care coverage because I’ve seen it work, and because I’ve seen how not having it has devastated so many American families. I believe in family benefits, basic income, and a decent living for our veterans and seniors. I know these things work. In some cases, social benefits make the difference between life and death – or at least between going without food to pay for shelter, or going without necessary medications in order to buy food.
A well-managed social benefits program like basic income actually encourages people to go out and do an honest day’s work. And there is research to back that up. Social benefits provide dignity and quality of life to our most vulnerable citizens, and they are a sign of respect for our elders and former servicemen and women. They are not handouts for lazy people, as some would have us believe.
Every Canadian both contributes and receives benefits according to his means or his household need. And although we tend to celebrate our “tax freedom day” later in the year than Americans do, the standard of living is comparable. No Canadian has ever had to seriously downgrade his standard of living in order to pay the taxes that go towards our social network.
Nobody is living high on the hog at the expense of another, but we do make it a priority to ensure that our country’s children and elderly, our pregnant women and young parents, our disabled individuals all have a chance at a decent standard of living. Does that really sound so terrible to an American conservative?
What are your thoughts about this liberal vs conservative Facebook meme? I’d also love to hear about your experiences living without a social safety net, and any really tight spots your family has been in because of the lack of social benefits where you live (it doesn’t have to be the United States.) Do you wish that your country were liberal enough to adopt Canadian-style universal health care or other social programs? If so, what do you think most needs to be covered?
Original content © 2016 Kyla Matton Osborne
This article was published on LiteracyBase. If you are reading this content anywhere else, it has probably been stolen. Please report it to me so I can address any copyright infringements. Thank you!
Need a place to publish your blogs? Join LiteracyBase now, and get paid to talk politics!
What is the Main Cause of a Heart Attack? What is its Solution? A heart attack is the blockage of… Read More
In the vast economic arena, one term that often takes center stage, inciting extensive debates and discussions, is the "debt… Read More
De-Dollarization: The Changing Face of Global Finance The financial landscape is in a state of flux, with an intriguing economic… Read More
The curtains closed on a dramatic Bundesliga season with Bayern Munich standing tall once again, clinching their 11th straight title.… Read More
The Unfolding Story of Celine Dion's Health In recent news that has left fans across the globe stunned, iconic singer… Read More
As the echoes of the recent NBA season start to fade, the attention of enthusiasts is firmly glued to one… Read More
View Comments
There is a saying "Whose father what goes" and that is what many apply in their life in that what does not concern them directly will not interest them.
@bestwriter I'd never heard that expression before, Grace.
Yes, many people do only want to concern themselves with things that impact them directly. That's not always a bad policy; in fact, it's often exactly what we should do. There are, however, many areas of common welfare that might see not to touch us directly when in fact they do. Health care, education, the maintenance of public roads and other facilities, sanitation, the military and police force, the court system, etc. all impact directly on us all.
If we are well today and have no need of a doctor, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't be concerned about the health of others. Access to quality medical services could have significantly reduced the impact of the last ebola outbreak, for example. And access to vaccines can help prevent many other outbreaks. Both communicable disease and crime rates are linked to how well a society cares for those who cannot afford to pay for medical services. So are things like productivity in the workplace.
Just a little food for thought....
I live in America. Yes I would support universal health care and social benefits? Why? Because the other stuff we're doing isn't working very well. We could at least try something different that has worked in other countries. I honestly don't think providing universal health care and social benefits could be “worse” than what we have now for our citizens!
Universal health and care both are useful for public because health is wealth but it should be with a solid planning so that everyone could get its benefits in USA and out of USA.
I define universal health care program as Universal health care, sometimes referred to as universal health coverage, universal coverage, or universal care, usually refers to a health care system which provides health care and financial protection to all citizens of a particular country.
I have read that The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals that all UN Member States have agreed to try to achieve Universal Health Coverage by 2030. This includes financial risk protection, access to quality essential health-care services and access to safe, effective, quality and affordable essential medicines and vaccines for all.
Universal health coverage (UHC) means that all people can use the promotive, preventive, curative, rehabilitative and palliative health services they need, of sufficient quality to be effective, while also ensuring that the use of these services does not expose the user to financial hardship.
These benefits may be got by every one that equity in access to health services - everyone who needs services should get them, not only those who can pay for them;
the quality of health services should be good enough to improve the health of those receiving services; and
people should be protected against financial-risk, ensuring that the cost of using services does not put people at risk of financial harm.