People love to label. Yet, as one of my professors and
mentors used to say, “Every label is a libel.” That is, we tend to classify
individuals into categories because we think it creates an easier way to
perceive and interpret the world, but in so doing, we make many assumptions
about those people which probably have no validity.
“Liberal” and “conservative” constitute such labels. What do
those terms really mean? What does it matter, for a research organization like
Wilder Research, which tries to do high quality, credible work that will
benefit everyone in the community?
Over the years, some observers have characterized Wilder
Research as liberal; others have characterized us as conservative. However, in
all honesty, we have shaped our strategy to appeal to the “reasonable middle,” who comprise perhaps 80% of the members of our
communities. This excludes the 10% on the two extreme ends of the continuum,
who won’t listen to any objectively gathered facts and whom we can most likely
never please.
Recently, someone made the comment that Wilder Research
tends to focus on “liberal topics.” Sounds simple, but what does that really
mean?
For more than 20 years, we have done research related to the
achievement gap – the difference in academic performance between white children
and children of color. We want to understand all its dimensions and how to
prevent it. Who cares about that? I think the reasonable middle cares a great
deal.
Some people care because the gap represents an unfair
situation. Children come into this world deserving equal opportunity. Some people
care because the gap represents a failure of our formal institutions, our
families, and everyone else with a stake in this issue to prepare children
academically. Some people care because the achievement gap threatens the future
livelihood, and potentially the security, of all of us – because children of
color comprise the fastest growing segment of our population; they will become
the future business leaders, workforce, parents, and leaders of our
communities. If they lack skills, our communities will not succeed.
That reasonable middle, those “people who care,” includes
both liberals and conservatives.
For more than 20 years as well, we have studied the needs of
caregivers – family members, professionals, others who care for dependent
children or for adults who require assistance with their daily living needs. We
have devoted more attention to the informal, unpaid caregivers than to those
employed by organizations; although we have studied both. We have pursued that
tack because most of us do caregiving for some portion of our lives, and the
demands it places on us can affect our physical and mental health. Moreover, the
need for non-institutional caregiving will increase dramatically in the coming
decades, as a result of our aging population.
Who cares about caregivers? Again, the reasonable middle
cares. That reasonable middle includes conservatives and liberals.
In recent years, we have initiated a number of studies of
the “return on investment” (ROI) of various services, usually services delivered
to low-income, vulnerable populations. Liberal research because it can
demonstrate the many benefits of these programs for our communities?
Conservative research because it can lead to economizing, and perhaps even to
elimination of ineffective programs? I like to think it’s a blend of both.
We’ve witnessed a lot of political posturing recently –
public officials lining up along party lines, seemingly more intent on
destroying those on the other side than on working together for the good of the
populace. That can fuel our cynicism and tempt us to conclude that efforts to
bring together people of differing political persuasions to address our
communities’ most pressing issues cannot succeed. I don’t want Wilder Research to
fall victim to that cynicism.
A friend of mine once told a joke to illustrate a key
difference between conservative and liberal problem-solving. . “If someone is drowning
and yelling for help, a conservative walking along the beach will throw a life
preserver half way out and agree to pull in the drowning person if that person
can independently go the first half of the distance. A liberal in the same
situation will throw the life preserver all the way out to the drowning person,
but then let go of the rope to walk on looking for the next problem to solve.”
Unfortunately, the stereotypes suggested in that joke contain
small grains of truth. Some of our friends and colleagues who say they are liberal
can naively assume that developing a new program or linking people to a service
is sufficient, that somehow all will work out for the good. On the other hand,
some of our friends and colleagues who say they are conservative can too easily
overlook the support systems that enabled them to achieve a desirable quality
of life, falsely concluding that they “made it completely on their own”.
A recent New York Times article, reprinted in the Pioneer
Press, describes a Lindstrom, Minnesota man who seems much too aloof to
rational thought for us to hope that he might pay attention to a research
study. He claims that he needs no help from the government, and he states that
too many Americans live beyond their means and lean on taxpayers to pull them
up. Yet, despite his proclamations of “independence”, he benefits from at least
two government subsidies: first, the earned income tax credit; and second, the
government-funded free/reduced priced lunches which his children receive at
school. (So, a citizen who speaks conservatively, but consumes liberally, it
appears!)
The current Presidential race has perhaps infected the
terms, liberal and conservative, to such an extent that we should not use them
anymore, lest we find ourselves attaching very inappropriate labels to people
in ways that we don’t intend. Perhaps we should discard the terms.
In the end, I want to devote the energy of Wilder Research
to opening our arms to the reasonable middle. Despite all the extremist
rhetoric, amplified by the news media, this audience really does exist. We can
consider our approach nonpartisan, or multi-partisan, however you want to frame
it. With this audience, we can build solutions, always imperfectly, but always
making progress.
