Spanking and a Two-Party System
I recently found out that in the United States, 19 states still allow corporal punishment in school. Now I have made my opinions about corporal punishment here (quick recap: grew up with it, turned out fine, but the way that it teeters on physical abuse seems like a line that is not worth approaching for me, but I still need to do more research) and it seems crazy to me that this is still a thing.
I tried to do some quick research as to what extent this is still allowed, because honestly, it feels like something out of the Charles Dickens-era than a part of our modern day education landscape. I guess this shock comes from being so far removed from that world, here in California where if you touch a child you are the one to get in trouble.
This article here shows that regulations are vague, but apparently there are rules about paddle size and the strength with which you can hit a student.
People who are working for the government, paid to give you education, and also allowed to hit you if you are bad. Basically, the government is allowed to hit you.
This brings up further ideas of inconsistencies within the two party partisan politics that we live by. Most of these 19 states are red states, more conservative and Republican. They want less government intervention and involvement-one time I even heard someone complain that they no longer were allowed to drive their car without seat belts because of the government. Yet, for some reason they want to allow people that the government has hired to be able to physically punish their children…
It’s strange to me in general that spanking/no spanking ideologies would trend across the political spectrum. I guess it’s just that conservatives want to preserve the old way (hence the name) while liberals are always desiring an advance?
Even with regard to other subjects both parties don’t match up with their general principles. Democrats are staunchly against capital punishment, tend to be more anti-war, and yet are against the pro-life movements (though I suppose this one generally comes down to when you consider the fertilized egg and all its subsequent variations to become a human); the opposite can be said of Republicans, who-being pro-life-support war and the death penalty vigorously. Republicans also believe that the government should give them more freedom to do as they please-unless of course this is LGBT marriage, then of course the government should intervene.
Why should border security and anti-immigration be a Republican ideal? After all, aren’t they the ones who push much harder than Democrats the ideas of the American dream and Columbus and how our forefathers came to this new land? Is there no Manifest Destiny for Latin immigrants?
Sure each side has its reasons for operating the ways that they do, but they don’t always add up. I think that this is the fault of having a two-party system in which everything must fall in this or that category.
In conflict resolution they talk about how conflicts often arise when people develop an us vs. them mindset-well, here in America, we have created an entire political system that enforces this mindset!
I don’t know the reasons why we have this system, I think I learned about it back in high school, but can’t really remember. Maybe there are extremely valid and beneficial reasons for it, but I can’t help but think that political dialogue would generally be helped by changing the system to shades party lines rather than the set system that predetermines your thoughts even if they don’t entirely add up.