More on cooperation, and a question

In my Thanksgiving post I mentioned the need for cooperation. It seems to me that just about every constructive thing that the human race has accomplished has been the result of cooperation.

We cooperate with each other in business, making deals with suppliers on materials prices, with clients on prices, with galleries on how pieces will be displayed and on their commissions. It would seem like a given that cooperation is an essential part of business. And yet, and this brings me to my question, cooperation is now seen as a “left wing” idea.

I am puzzled by exactly how this happened. I can understand how any number of ideas became associated with the left wing. But cooperation? Is this not a basic human idea? That we work together to solve problems?

Would compromise, by the same logic, also now be considered a left wing idea? I would love to get some other thoughts on this.

D.D.

COMMENTS

  1. A.J. Hamler wrote:

    It’s been my experience that anyone who is so deeply entrenched in one political side or another as to be called a “winger” — it doesn’t matter if it’s the left or right appendage — that person politicizes any idea with which they disagree and then ascribes it to the “other” wing as a Bad Thing.

    The way I see it, cooperation means… well, I think Webster was pretty clear on what it means. It means exactly what it says. As in, “Hey, David; hand me that hammer and we’ll finish this job.” That’s cooperation, in its simplest form, at work. No need — or logical sense — in politicizing it, save for the odd satisfaction some folks seem to take in doing so.

    I tend to ignore politicization of anything outside of literal politics (which I also typically ignore). Either agree with it, or disagree with it, but don’t label it “left” or “right.”

  2. Doug wrote:

    The republican party has been hijacked by people so far to the right that the middle ground is left to them. I saw an interview with some of the people who worked for President Reagan shortly after this election was decided. Their consensus was that he would have been too liberal to have gotten the republican nomination this year. It’s very sad, I am a lifelong republican and I can no longer support the party because of their radical right wing stance on social issues. I remember President Reagan saying that if someone through no fault of their own needed help they should be able to get help from the government if they cannot find it anywhere else. The republicans now seem to believe, I’ve got mine the heck with everybody else. That in and of itself leaves me out.

  3. Lea wrote:

    David, the problem is that by co-opting “cooperation”, or any other useful trait, the left can now claim that the right is, by definition, *against* “cooperation” or whatever. Patently absurd when you think about it, but unfortunately readily accepted by too many people. AJ, like many of us up till now, would like to “ignore politicization of anything outside of literal politics”, but the last few years have shown that overt politicization is becoming the norm for nearly every aspect of our lives, and it is being done deliberately to polarize the country. We ignore it at the peril of our continued freedom.

    We need more people like yourself willing to speak out and question the ideological takeover of such positive and universal traits. Equally, we need to speak out against assigning universal negative traits exclusively to the other side.

POST A NEW COMMENT




The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.

Comments *



* Required fields
Read our Comments Policy