Political Discourse

I really enjoy talking with another informed citizen who has a contrary opinion. My friend at American Express, John, is one such person. He and I could agree on the facts most of the time, so we actually spent more time on the policies, which we sometimes disagreed, but we respected each other because we understood about what the other was concerned.

Typically, our policy disagreements were more due to the prioritization of our concerns than completely different concerns. For example, we were each concerned about these same two principles, but had more concern for one than another. For the purposes of this example, "private" is characterized by corporations and the rich who derive inordinate power from the money they control; "government" is characterized by the various levels of government who derive inordinate power from laws and taxes.

My emphasis:

1. Protect private opportunity for personal and economic growth from governmental interference.
2. Protect private opportunity for personal and economic growth from private interference.

John's emphasis:

1. Protect private opportunity for personal and economic growth from private interference.
2. Protect private opportunity for personal and economic growth from governmental interference.

What can we learn from this about myself and John? We both see government and private interests as potential threats to our personal prosperity. However, I view government as more of a threat in terms of consequence and/or probability, and he sees private interests as more of a threat in the same terms. I think this a good example that describes some of the differences between the sides of our political discourse.

IcQ Question:

1. Why would someone be more concerned with government interference than private interference? And vice-versa?
2. Are our political differences truly that different in this country?