Attitudes

Social networking. When you go to compose your profile they ask you about two things among many others: Political Views and Religious Views, accepted as a generalization of someone's outlook and world perspective. I think there is something missing here, an important factor not accounted for.

I'm making the argument for a third field: Social Views. Come along, if you will. Given a person's religious and political views does not necessarily impart their feelings toward an individual's involvement in a system. Political views like Republican or Libertarian describe attitudes toward government and its effect on the individual, but not of the individual's charge. In general, most people expect others to be 'contributing members to society' and consider this duty complete if they fulfill the base requisite of punching a clock. Raise the bar.

Religion, some being a retired form of government, can describe values conflicting with political views and as far as social attitudes has a general approach of presenting a list of "no-nos" with the usual creed of "Be a good person! :)" As long as you're not killing, raping or stealing my daughter--we're cool. So far we have what the man can do, and what you can't do. Something's missing.

I get the impression that social views are not something most people think about but they do have latent feelings on the matter. Any non-contributing member is naturally frowned upon; most people can appreciate reciprocation as a base concept. Adopting a Social View would require someone to think about how they declare what they expect of fellow citizens.

This goes without saying:
ONE CANNOT MAINTAIN AN EXPECTATION IN ANOTHER
THEY THEMSELVES COULD NOT FULFILL.
"Democracy" represents its constituents and calls on them to perform an integral function in the process. Unfortunately the topic these days is: social capital and involvement aren't what they used to be. Democracy inaction. There are no laws requiring citizens to vote, serve in bureaucracy/armed forces or in any way make their world better. Many US citizens would be troubled to make the distinction between their political, religious and underlying social views. Separation of hearts and minds.

Political allegiances address two basic issues: what the government can do with my money, and what the government can do with my personal life. Regulation of these areas and a person's feelings in regards can outline their social views to a degree but it's all geared toward government involvement at some point. Conservatives don't want liberals giving their tax money to poor kids, liberals don't want the conservative's de-regulation allowing profiteering. Socialism even (in general) is just a variation of how the government establishes who gets what, when and how. Things get personal when some people can get married and some can't, and again we're faced with a system geared to say "No."

Things get fuzzy even from an insider's perspective when religious views are taken into account. Sprawling across the political spectrum, religious representation is borne on the chests of the minor sincere and the major trite, who have found a variety of illogical ways to reconcile their political and religious beliefs (No, you can't be against abortion and support the death penalty). Religion does not serve the administrative function it once did but it still exercises power in influence. Of course no obliged conservative can produce a single reason other than their personal beliefs dictated by indoctrination as to why two men or women shouldn't be able to legally recognize their union. This is becoming old news. Yet still, in spite of the weak argument, states have denied that very right. Do your part, follow my rules.

People might benefit from contemplating a list of "do's." Do perform your duties well, do leave something better than you found it, do give as much as you get, do consider the impact of your actions, do well to your fellow beings. We all know what people can't do, but what are our developed expectations of them? What are our expectations of ourselves? We throw an impossible variety of expectations at our government and most sit back to reap the benefits. Nobody said bailout here, this issue is nothing new.

You give people the choice and they tend to get lazy. With no expectations, what could one expect? The thing about attitudes is people who share them tend to gather. Once enough aggregate, they can affect the process of their world. Interest groups, lobbies, political parties form. Religions begin. Other new things leap from the collective mind. Presume positive intent. Even people you disagree with on many levels are trying to make their world a better place. Disdaining at errant arguments over personal beliefs, I encourage a focus on contribution and prudence. What does a person have to offer to theirself and those around them? How do they better the world around them?

The direction is forward.