We are all confused, but if we step away from the ardency it becomes easy to begin to elevate from confusion. The most confused people are those who believe, ardently, they are not confused.
In the United States, confusion is an effective and oft-used tactic of the institutional status quo, which limits social thinking and, in turn, inhibits true social progress. And the worst confusion today can be summed up as an intentionally distorted perspective on the differentiation between the rights of individuals and institutions. It seems we've forgotten who is working for who.
Long ago, in primal times, it may have served us to be confrontational and to see the world in opposition, but today these tendencies just provide leverage for institutions. All around the world, we face the left/right wing dynamic which divides societies and hinders them from reaching mutual and progressive solutions. This of course functions to benefit the oligarchs who, lacking direction except increasing their monies, create fear and discord with misinformation and then offer short sighted, extremely profitable "solutions" to the "market" -- in place of the genuine, inclusive progress we all know is needed.
Most people openly identify themselves as Conservative or Liberal, Republican or Democrat, right wing or left wing. But this identification just lends more power to those at the top of the piles (Republican or Democrat) who are visibly money and power at our collective expense, and hiding under a thin veil of divisive party "philosophies". And yet this institutionalized notion of right and left wing is still supported by the public majority, who are somehow convinced that an institutional body whose job it is explicitly to gain and maintain power and influence in competition with others has our society's individual and collective best interests in mind.
The difference between Republicans and Democrats begins with rifts so great it might seem they could never have parallel direction, and yet they end up doing exactly the same things and support/are supported by the same elements of the status quo. For instance, in the U.S.A. Republicans generally state that individuals alone or in personal groupings can best empower us all, while Democrats essentially state that the collective of individuals can best help empower us all. Well, they are both right, but both wind up being horribly wrong in their implementation and as a result, neither approach is encouraged.
The dividing line of the right and left wing is not as smooth as the spine line of an eagle or any bird, it is more like a zig zag zipper line, but they still fit neatly together, limiting public debate to the narrowest field of difference while creating the illusion of genuine deliberation. Ultimately though, they're still two cheeks around the same bunghole. The Republicans riding the right wing and Democrats riding the left wing, both end up setting up institutions firstly instead of directly uplifting and empowering individuals to freedom and happiness, as they claim is their pursuit. And institutions inevitably go oligarchical, serving those at the top at the expense of all others.The Polarity of Healthcare
In the U.S.A. individual healthcare has recently become a political issue that is perfectly demonstrative of the right wing/left wing dynamic, and how it benefits controlling institutions over real human beings.
The Democrat approach to individual healthcare was to build up a health insurance mandate instead of just building up individual healthcare systems that provide services to individuals, like open hospital care without insurance institutionalization combined with free medical education - just like, say, Cuba and Germany offer. The insurance mandate was implemented as a medium because the Republican perspective insists we should all fend for ourselves and allow the market to decide - which is to say, if you're sick and poor then you have failed to adequately present yourself to market and may therefore be left to die.
The left and right wings settled on and built up what is an institutionalization hole. Their healthcare industry formula conveniently ignores the 'square root' of institutionalized corruption -- the notion that immorality is justified by legality. At its core, the ins-and-outs of many day-to-day functions represent the straight-out gouging of sick and desperate people. But instead of overhaul, there was simply more institutionalization -- the opposite of what both left and right first claimed to represent.
Does this pattern sound familiar?
Perhaps the Republican perspective to proceed without interference or assistance would be sensible if Republican and Democrat "industrialists" had not operated without interference for the last couple of hundred years, polluting every drop of water and every breath of air from here to Kingdom Come, so that we all need more healthcare, more often. Or maybe it would work if the nation's medical institutions were not all so heavily corrupted by pharmaceutical profiteering. Perhaps it would make sense if our grandchildren and their grandchildren were not destined to be born into a world contaminated by toxins generated by this century's institutional and industrial failings.
In the broader context, the "compromise" seems less sensible and more a corruption of intent.
Throughout recorded time, the right wing/left wing dynamic has degraded and distracted us. But we forget that both 'wings' operate via the same brain, and are part of the same duality. In our dualistic reality, opposing positions can both be true, as we understand via the matrix of four forms of critical thought:
Is it so? Is it not so? Is it neither? Is it both?
But the left/right paradigm draws our attention only to a limited scope of thinking: "Is it so? Or is it not so?". The "both" (the compromise) and the "neither" (the infinite other possibilities) positions are never considered or explored. Rather, such possibilities are typically marginalized, as are their messengers.