Is there a better way for the media to frame political issues than liberals vs. conservatives?

The airwaves and newsprint are full of discussions of political issues, but those discussions are almost always couched in terms of a liberal point of view vs. a conservative point of view. This “liberal/conservative” lens does not provide a clear view of the decisions we need to make as a people.

There are other ways of framing issues. Here’s a suggestion - a way of looking at questions that I have found useful. As with so many ideas, it is found by studying our founding fathers.

Liberals and conservatives also faced off on issues in the early years of our country. Notably, Alexander Hamilton was a conservative, and he argued that our young nation needed a strong central government to get things done. Thomas Jefferson was a liberal who believed that personal freedom needed to be protected, and strict limits on government would be the best safeguard. As a liberal, Jefferson thought that most governing should be handled locally, while conservative Hamilton thought a central government would be more efficient. So these two founding fathers were considered liberal and conservative, but in much different ways than today’s political figures. They understood what the real debate was about when discussing any issue - government control vs. personal freedom.

Over time, the definitions of liberal and conservative have evolved. Now Webster’s definition, as we have previously seen, does not fit the beliefs of many who use them as labels. The theoretical terms on which we build our political two-party system remain poorly defined, and the system often doesn’t serve the issues we must discuss.

So what are the real differences today between liberalism and conservatism? How do they compare in terms of government control vs. personal freedom?)

Let’s look at the extremes. Communist systems (extreme “left wing”) and fascist systems (extreme “right wing”) look very similar to the average citizen because they both come down on the side of heavy government control. Both are unpleasant to live under and wouldn’t be accepted by freedom loving Americans.

So why not go with no government; total personal freedom?

That doesn’t work. Look at any place remote enough that it can’t be reached by the power of a strong central government. Afghanistan, Cambodia, Congo, Columbia, all show that where there is no government presence, something will develop to fill the void. And it won’t serve the people.

So unlimited government control looks bad; no government control looks bad. We need balance between government control and personal freedom.

We have a democratic government, which means it’s our job as citizens to find that balance, or select leaders who will find that balance for us. And balance gets to the heart of most contentious issues.

For example, conservatives argue for equal opportunity; liberals argue for equal outcomes. Both sides argue fairness. Neither side are villains. We need to find a balance.

Conservatives argue for the sanctity and government protection of human life at some times and not others; liberals disagree on when life should be protected and when government should butt out. We as a society need to decide upon balance points.

Since 9/11, some conservatives argue that the government needs more power to keep us secure; liberals say we could lose important freedoms. Both sides are right; there are dangers both ways. The balance point has changed and we need to decide where it should be today.

Over the last two decades the government stepped away from controlling economic markets. In the last year even some conservative economists have conceded that the invisible hand has not done a good job and new government regulations are needed. We need a new balance point.

These balance points are never going to be easy to determine. They will change as national and world conditions change. But we will not find them if we begin discussing every issue by choosing sides, demonizing those who think differently, and wrangling for political advantage.

Politicians and political parties won’t change things. Answered problems can’t help them in their quest for power. The pundits won’t change things. Loudly debating issues is how they make a living. The journalists in the mass media would find it difficult to change things; they’ve covered issues this way for so long. It’s what they know.

But - what would happen if one news program, or one newspaper, or one news magazine, decided that it would cover issues not by contrasting what liberals say with what conservatives say, but by looking at what the shared goals and values are, and using them to frame discussions of issues. Imagine if they looked at what the possibilities are - what actions the government might take, and what implications those actions would have on our personal freedoms, rather than how the issue fits with pre-defined ideologies.

Suppose that same media outlet refused to label people, but just presented their ideas. Would that shed more light? Would it result in more substantive debate of issues?

Government control balanced with personal freedom is just one alternate way of framing issues in the news. There are plenty of other theories that could be useful. We have, as a society, settled upon one way of examining and discussing issues. It polarizes us, and doesn’t work well unless you’re a politician seeking power or a journalist looking for a shortcut.

We can do better.

Do you have any ideas for alternate ways news media could frame issues?

Let’s hear them.