Declaring one side’s needs as more important ultimately serves no one. Indeed, such political “debating” hides each other’s vulnerable needs in the dark, while fueling mutual hate. Such us-first debating demands. An understanding love gives.
As equal under the law, equal before nature
According to anakelogy, all needs sit equal before nature. No need is greater than another need, although in the moment it sure can feel that way. The more painful a need the more urgent it feels, demanding prompt relief. Bias can blind you from the depths of their pain.
Liberals fearing re-traumatization from violent forms of once-sanctioned discrimination is ultimately no different than conservatives suffering mounting infringements upon their social cohesion by forceful government fiat. No, your owie is not bigger than theirs. Because, anakelogically, any unmet need limits functioning. Any limit can compromise what they can actually do for each other, and do for their own cross-party constituents.
Anakelogy can describe both the distinct needs of liberals and the distinct needs of conservatives. Where they tend to clash, and where they complement each other.
Anakelogically speaking, liberalism can only be viewed as better than conservatism where it resolves needs better than conservatism. Likewise, conservatism can only be viewed as better than liberalism where it resolves needs better than liberalism. Merely easing the pain from persisting needs doesn’t cut it. Not from either political side.
Both persist because both sufficiently ease the needs of its adherents. Otherwise, according to anakelogy, such politics would not exist. There would be no liberalism if it served no needs. There would be no conservatism without contrasting needs.
Albeit, politics-as-usual favors mere pain relief, so we tend to miss the full potential of each side to fully resolve needs. It’s easy to dismiss the other side when only focusing on its failed policies. They’re easy to ignore while experiencing your own side as vital for easing your own painfully felt needs, as if their equally valid but distinctly different needs don’t matter to you at all.
You ignore at your own risk this differing set of needs of ultimately equal value. So with the tools of anakelogy you can finally understand both sides evenly. The anakelogical tool used here is called “parallel parsing.”
Parallel parsing: both sides now
Of course, the process is much more complex than briefly represented here. For a more thorough treatment, please check out the eCourse at Udemy, starting with the free previews. If you're on a tight budget, ask me about any available discounts. I trust it will open doors for you in ways you’ve never seen before.
Next: Your psychosocial needs
You "need" your liberalism
Think about it. Why are you a liberal, and not conservative?
Did you open yourself to all possibilities, then come to a reasoned conclusion that liberalism must be the best outlook for everyone in our society?
Or did you find liberalism the best organized response to those needs you’re most familiar?
We can show you how you are liberal because you “need” to be liberal. Then demonstrate how others “need” to be conservative. It’s not a simple choice when you’re in pain from many unmet needs.
Your objective sounding left leaning arguments guard your vulnerably felt situational needs, in contrast to their situational needs. These needs refuse to play by the rules of rationality. So it’s okay to admit it: You subjectively need your liberalism.
Parallel parsing: examining on equal footing two oppositional elements, normally viewed as one being better than the other, from the perspective of removing such distorting bias.
You "need" your conservatism
Think about it.Why are you a conservative, and not liberal?
Did you open yourself to all possibilities, then come to a reasoned conclusion that conservatism must be the best outlook for everyone in our society?
Or did you find conservatism the best ordered response to those needs you’re most familiar?
We can show you how you are conservative because you “need” to be conservative. Then demonstrate how others “need” to be liberal. It’s not a simple choice when you’re in pain from many unmet needs.
Your objective sounding right leaning arguments guard your vulnerably felt situational needs, in contrast to their situational needs. These needs refuse to play by the rules of rationality. So it’s okay to admit it: You subjectively need your conservatism.
Empower Politics features “parallel parsing” that impartially describes both sides equally. You will only get that refreshing objectivity here.
You view the Left side-by-side with the Right (vertically here on mobile devices). You see each side treated as no better than the other.
The above serves as an example of “parallel parsing.” Both sides experience situational needs equally, without biasing one situation as greater or lesser than the other. The focus stays on describing what is there, before insisting what should be there. It’s a matter of first appreciating the role of need in shaping political views.
This is part of the “discipline” of anakelogy, the study of need.
You "need" your ideology
Once you appreciate the diversity of needs beneath opposing political views, a door will open up to you to move past stifling political polarization. If you dare to enter.
You need differently from them
We proceed with mutual respect for each other’s contrasting situational needs. This is where politics-as-usual easily goes astray. Anakelogy pulls us back into much needed mutual respect.
Your needs are real, more real than your beliefs about them. Their needs are real, deeper than their beliefs about them. What you believe about their needs, or what they believe about yours, falls precipitously into bias.
Once you accept how you need differently from the other side, debating how best to respect each other’s situational needs can begin in earnest. The needs themselves scoff at political argument. The reality of these differing needs resist “democratic debate.” You can either accept the reality of one another’s differing needs, or run into a brick wall. Reality is not up for a vote.
You can then engage in meaningful discussions how to allow each other to resolve their needs. Instead of biased debating, you explore how to minimize interfering with each other, or even complementing one another’s efforts.
You can even draw attention to your sacrificial love when patiently waiting for the other side to reciprocate your generosities. You love your foes into respecting your side’s situational needs. Are you ready to turn politically privileged hate into mutually appreciated love?
Do you think a good debate can convince someone to change political sides? Do you believe liberals choose to be liberal and conservatives choose to be conservative?
Conventional wisdom assumes you logically arrived at the rightness of your political views. Opponents proclaiming an opposite position must be illogical, irrational, easily manipulated by elites, influenced by media bias, or beholden to special interests, or worse. Right?
Of course, they assume the same about you. Both sides may assume something must be terribly wrong with the other side’s thinking.
Get ready to put that notion to rest. By debunking that popular assumption, we can finally dissolve some political animosity. Let’s stop expecting others to change what cannot be readily changed. If you resist converting to their side, get ready to see why they resist converting to yours.
Look back at how we undercut racial animosity, by appreciating the content of character over the unchangeable color of one’s skin. Think back more recently how we accepted gay folk as “born that way.” Using those as a reference point, consider how political orientation may be rooted in an inflexible orientation solidly geared toward situational needs.
You generally cannot choose your needs. Your life’s situation shapes your needs and how you may respond to them. Your needs compel you to seek relief from the support of others who share your experience, and repel you from others who don’t. You only “chose” your political outlook because you “need” your political outlook. You lean toward what you need.
Lean left? Lean right?