In almost every ideology you will find inconsistency, and politics is no different. With the growing party-divides, however, people have become more likely to make blanket statements about people of other political groups. I want to focus on two claims to show that inconsistency is rampant on each side of the political spectrum.

The first is the left saying that they are the “party of science”. This is generally said in talking about climate change, which the right has generally denied to exist, but it extends to issues particularly driven by religious views, such as abortion and the topic of education. To prove their point, the left might point to stories like Pat Robertson claiming that an earthquake in Hati was a punishment by God for making a “pact with the devil” rather than recognizing earthquakes are caused by shifts in Earth’s tectonic plates.

I am not going to argue that there aren’t anti-science people on the right. Rather, I want to clarify that 1) there are anti-science people on the left and 2) there are scientists on the right.

So first, let’s talk about the left’s anti-science views. The issues of GMOs and vaccines, for example, can be very problematic. GMOs are scientifically supported  and vaccinations are held in incredibly high regard in the medical community. There is also the vast desire for more homeopathic remedies like drinking Kombucha, which has no actual scientific evidence supporting its purported health benefits . There is a pretty good article from the left-leaning site Mother Jones on the fact that many of these issues are also feared by the right, while the issues the right attacks like Evolution and Abortion are almost solely conservative viewpoints. But that is not my argument. I'm not saying that the right is less, more or the same as the left in regards to its alignment with the scientific community. What’s important is to recognize, though, is that saying that the people on the left only believes things that are scientifically founded is inaccurate. Anyone on any side can be swayed by misinformation that plays on peoples’ fears and intuitions. The left is no exception.

Second, claiming that the right is filled with unscientific, religious nut-jobs is not only useless, but wrong. For example, many on the right are switching their view on the issue of climate change. Regarding evolution, while the number is shrinking, a significant number of Republicans still believe in evolution in some form. For many people on the right, their viewpoint comes largely from their religious/moral convictions and from their economic beliefs. You can’t argue about when God puts a soul in a fetus from a scientific viewpoint. If someone believes the soul is created at conception, that person isn’t going to care about how viable the fetus is outside of the womb. That would have nothing to do with their definition of life. So it’s not a scientific debate. It’s a religious one. Most interesting to me is the fact that the non-religious Republicans have been moving away from believing in evolution. I can’t understand this other than in its relation to the bubbles of media. If you read right-wing sites because you are fiscally conservative, perhaps other views that have nothing to do with economics might change your beliefs. That said, I will say I have no evidence to support the claim and that I am suggesting it based entirely on my intuition. Certainly, however, the scientific community’s consensus is that evolution by natural selection is a reality both historically and currently.

The second claim I wanted to discuss is that the right claims they are the “party of individual freedoms”. On many fronts, the conservative view point is to give maximum freedom to individuals and so desire smaller central government and stronger state/local governments. But while that is true, ask a typical liberal about abortion and they’ll say that government should get out of that aspect of their life and the conservatives think the opposite. Much of this, as with many divides, occur on religious boundaries. Ultimately, though, using religion to justify law doesn’t change the fact that it decreases personal freedoms.

Everyone knows I’m baesic so let’s start with an issue that weighs heavily on my heart: the Starbucks holiday cup. Recently, Starbucks removed anything relating the cup to Christmas (Note: they still have a “Christmas Blend”, as well as a “Holiday Blend”). I can’t claim I know the reasons behind the decision. They claim it’s about inclusion, but it likely was a highly calculated marketing tool that got them a ton of free publicity via the news coverage and also appeals to their general audience base, which lies primarily in liberally-minded cities.

That being said, take a train ride to a different time with Mitt Romney running for president and you might remember the phrase “Corporations are people, my friend” This phrase is significant and legally accurate, especially after the Citizen’s United supreme court ruling. So corporations should be able to make decisions for themselves about what they do, including in terms of religion, right? In fact, companies like Hobby Lobby fought and won trying to get out of providing free birth control to employees that was a mandate in the Affordable Care Act citing their religious beliefs. The Republicans were all for that, for obvious reasons.

But Starbucks was different. Starbucks wanted to be more secular. They made a conscious business decision to subtract religious symbols from the cups that customers drank out of. One would think the right would support this act. But no, many have gone out of their way to call for a boycott. Even the president elect suggested in 2015 regarding companies usage of “happy holidays” that “if I become president, we're all going to be saying, 'Merry Christmas' again” . I don’t care what side of the political spectrum or religious affiliation you have: that’s not individual freedom. I want to be clear that I’m not giving it a value judgement. I’m just saying that it’s not individual freedom.

Another side of the right are the Libertarians. These folks’ beliefs tend to lie more liberally on social issues like marijuana and gay marriage. Gary Johnson and Bill Weld made a strong attempt during the last election to push that they were fiscally conservative and socially liberal. “Government gets out of your wallet and your bedroom”, as they put it. But there’s a big problem that they never admitted to with their logic. That is that the decentralization of government will be very costly to some individuals’ freedoms across the country. Take the topic of gay marriage or abortion. If the government got rid of Roe v Wade and the rulings regarding gay marriage, how many conservative states would continue those policies? Not many. Those personal freedoms of being able to terminate a pregnancy and to be married to a person of the same gender would be limited or eliminated across the country. So really, Libertarians aren’t simply pro-freedom either.

At some point, one has to realize that we make laws limiting things we find immoral and that is largely what separates the two sides. We all agree murder should be illegal, for example. No one is arguing about the loss of that personal freedom. But a liberal might find it immoral not to serve a cake to a couple because they are gay and try and outlaw that, or a conservative might see abortion as taking a God given life and so try to outlaw that. It’s not that one side is pro-freedom and the other anti-freedom. They simply have different values and moral beliefs.

Generalizing about people on either side of the political spectrum has been totally misused and is destroying the political dialogue in America. Just as you’ll never find a person who interprets the Bible the same way as you, you will likely never meet someone who agrees with you on exactly what is moral and on what is the best social and fiscal policy. And that’s okay! It’s okay to disagree! Labels are great for many things. They help unify people with similar values, for instance. But lately they’ve become so polarizing politically that nearly half the population now views themselves as independents. So please treat people like the individuals they are. You’ll likely find that you have far more similarities than differences.