On the surface, it seems simple: Republicans are conservatives and Democrats are liberals. Yet, as Yuval Noah Harari points out in his book “21 Lessons for the 21st Century,” political identities are far more complex. He notes that “many so-called conservatives also embrace liberalism.”
Consider Harari’s test: Do you believe leaders should be elected rather than hereditary? Do you believe people should choose their profession instead of being bound to a caste? Do you believe people should select their spouse rather than accept one chosen by parents or society? If you answered “yes” to all three, Harari argues, you are a liberal — no matter your party label.
Drug policy offers another example. President Donald Trump says he’s considering reclassifying marijuana as a less dangerous drug. Back in the 20th century, the conservative position was President Richard Nixon’s “War on Drugs,” and First Lady Nancy Reagan’s “Just Say No” campaign.
Economic policy, too, blurs boundaries. The Trump administration took a stake in Intel and floated taking stakes in defense contractors. Critics call this socialism — government control over the means of production. But when a New York City mayoral candidate proposes city-owned grocery stores, is that any more socialist than the government owning a stake in a corporation like Intel?
Cultural issues are also blurred. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent is a gay man who has two children with his husband. Still, there was no widespread opposition to Bessent by evangelical Christians in Trump’s MAGA base. Bessent is not alone. Many gay men hold important jobs in the Trump administration.
I raise these questions because rigid labels of “conservative” or “liberal” do not capture many of today’s realities. In the 21st century, issues are more nuanced than ever, and our politics would benefit from recognizing complexity rather than clinging to oversimplified identities.
Philip Wasserman
Stevenson Ranch
