Political cafeterias

Our political landscape exists as a linear spectrum between left and right. Americans see a politician as left-wing or right-wing, or maybe a supposed centrist. Do you support the Affordable Care Act? You must be a Democrat. Do you despise the welfare programs? You’re probably a Republican. This absolutist view of politics results in gridlock, government failure and cultural stagnation. I prefer to see myself as a “cafeteria thinker.” Here are a few examples.

I support a government jobs program based on massive infrastructure overhaul. To borrow an idea from House of Cards’ (2013-present)Frank Underwood, the United States should be a nation of near-universal employment. Although there will always be temporary unemployment, a lack of opportunity should never be permanent. If you want a job, you should have an opportunity to gain one. Will it be a “fun” job? Maybe, maybe not. Nevertheless, we as a nation cannot consign individuals to jobless despair if we are to solve our numerous social problems, be they urban blight or broken families. In conjunction with a major hike in the minimum wage, and by subsequently tacking it to inflation, we could provide millions of Americans the opportunity to lift themselves from despair.

I advocate phasing out many entitlement programs, in tandem with the aforementioned vast jobs initiative. We need to acknowledge the agency of the individual in determining his or her fate. If you choose not to save your money for retirement, that is your problem, not the American people’s. Many people argue that cutting welfare will send millions of Americans to poverty. I disagree. If you are not earning your way in society, you are already in a dependent poverty. Sympathy programs degrade the value of human beings, as they lose their agency, their individual spirit. Welfare programs do not raise Americans from poverty, jobs do. If you value independence, freedom and empathy over pity, how can you believe in such a paternalistic system?

I believe in an end to fiscal loopholes, offshore holding companies and other forms of de facto tax evasion. It is time to repatriate American companies. Rand Paul, whom I disagree with on many issues, nevertheless proposed a valuable solution: lower corporate tax rates, but close the loopholes. Corporations should pay their due to the society that supports them as well as recognize their part in the fabric of society. They have a responsibility to the nation that birthed them. Government and the private sector should not be at odds, but rather should see one another as partners in the American project. No one should be able to escape cultural responsibility, and no one should want such an escape.

This cultural responsibility extends to an environmental responsibility. We as a nation have an obligation to safeguard the world that humanity lives in. Though it is a tragedy when any species goes extinct, the greater tragedy would be our own demise. Environmentalists, to garner support from all Americans, need to focus on how climate change will destroy the world we live in, rather than just the world of a platypus or a fox. We need strong government and private sector actions to combat the causes and effects of climate change. To cut greenhouse gas emissions, we should focus on a comprehensive cap and trade system, leveraging the free market and government power. We should actively turn to carbon sequestration and nuclear power. Together, through private-public partnership, we can stem the tide of climate disaster.

In future articles, I will delve further into the merits of these seemingly disparate positions. If our nation is to be the city on the hill, a beacon of liberty, opportunity and dialogue, we must look past the absolutist enshrinement of left versus right. We must come up with our own baskets of solutions and beliefs, rather than subscribing to one stagnating side of a useless binary. Choose your own ethical and political codes rather than letting others choose for you. As I join the Tufts Daily as an op-ed contributor, I look forward to sharing my views and hearing yours. I hope that many readers will disagree with my arguments, because that is how dialogue begins.