Is the main difference among political perspectives that of goals, or of strategies in reaching those goals?

Question

I have engaged in political debate with friends over the years, and I am coming to the realization that, on most issues, where a difference exists, it is usually because two people value different things. For example, to ask if unions are a "good" thing is too vague to be useful. The question is whether one is primarily concerned with workers, or with owners/shareholders. Nonetheless, I hear politicians debating vaguely over whether a policy is good or bad, every day. Why not just acknowledge that policy A is good for these people with these interests, and policy B is good for those people with those interests?

Thanks for the feedback so far. I just wanted to add that I do not mean to suggest that there should be different laws for different people. I mean that, in the interest of intellectual honesty, we could at least acknowledge that different policies are good for different groups: i.e., I know that policy X would make the rich richer, but I don't care about the rich, or, I know that policy Y will give workers more money, but I don't care about workers.

Answer 1

I think mostly goals are different. In some cases, there can be reasonable debate on how best to acheive certain goals, but usually, I think that the goals are the topic for debate.

Answer 2

A long time ago I concluded that most politicians share very similar views. Subsequently, their goals and strategies are simply diversions. Its been a long time since we had proper political representation of true statesman's quality. At election time, they want to be everything to everyone. Once elected, they respond to their own conscience which is guided by the deep pockets of influential lobbyists. The debates will continue endlessly because politicians use their positions not so much for their beliefs as for the development of their political base. In this manner, they essentially always capture 50% support from the electorate. President Bush plays this game well. He could easily be at 50% if he were not so self-righteous and arrogant.

Answer 3

It's more ends than means, in politics. Liberals want something entirely diff. from conservatives. Unions aren't "good" for owners/share holders. They are a liberal idea.

It is aknowledged that some policies sound good to some people, and not to others, but we can't have diff. sets of laws based on a person's values. That's why in the US, we have diff. political parties competing. Theoretically, the majority of the country will end up happy.

Answer 4

So that you won't eliminate any potential voters. Our politicians today are more concerned with power then people. This is why it's like pulling teeth to get someone to stand strong for or against an issue that does not coinside with the party line.