Theaters of Mutual Antagonism

[Cramulus]

The Two Man Con

We're embedded in a number of mutually antagonistic systems. Our reality emerges from the tension between these bodies.

For example, we Americans have three branches of government (five, if you count media and finance). They are designed to check and balance each other. Each branch is vaguely tethered to public approval, ensuring - in theory - that if any one branch goes too far, the bastards will get impeached or voted out. In this scenario, we actually EXPECT that each branch will act selfishly and test the boundaries of what it can get away with, but will be checked by the group they're screwing.

Likewise we've got this two party system which is contentious and hostile BY DESIGN. If any single party managed to collect and concentrate power until they were in full control, the results would probably be disasterous. Our system is designed to minimize this damage by making politicians subject to election every few years, making sure that when (not if) they go too far, (and we find out about it) we get to vote the bastards out.

At this point it goes without saying that the two party system is a two man con. It is not designed to produce the best government, or the greatest good for the greatest number, it is designed to select the party which can best concentrate power and attract swing voters.

The other day I sat on my back porch and entertained some beardy liberal guests who were going on about how republicans are destroying America. And while I agree that a lot of those cats are off the rails, it's not like they're the sole source of suffering in this country. Their actions are fairly rational - maybe not to us individuals, but within the greater political theater. Things like debt-ceiling-brinksmanship are completely rational in the context of that theater. That's why we don't expect anything to actually get better.

Somebody once described the arms-race at the end of the Cold War as two people standing in a room waist deep in gasoline. Both people are saying, "Hah! I've got more matches than you!" Is it me, or is that the flavor of politics too?

I'm having trouble figuring out how to relate to these antagonistic systems. I feel that those beardos saying "We have to vote out the republicans, no matter what" --- are just as much a part of the problem. That antagonistic approach to national issues may score a good victory here and there, but it perpetuates the tit-for-tat theater of antagonism.

But stepping back a little further, I have to wonder - what's the alternative? Do we WANT a harmonious political theater? Are we better served by antagonism than we are by unity?




If you don't join a party, you're on the outside letting US decide


Imagine there's a bunch of us on an island. We can't agree on how to govern ourselves or how to distribute resources, so we divide into two camps. Like clockwork, we will be fighting each other and acting not in the islands best interest, but in the interest of the tribe we identify with. I don't want to live on an island at war - what do I do? Do I support the party which best claims to represent peace? Then we'll annihilate those warmongers on the other side? something should smell fishy about that.

BUT WAIT - In the world of political rhetoric, there is a huge first strike advantage. By NOT annihilating the warmongers, aren't we just allowing them to frame the discussion? "You've gotta be in it to win it." I identify as independant, I am a "swing voter". I feel like that's the best way to make sure my interests remain relevant to the elected officials.

But it's also a way to ensure I don't resonate with any existing system. It means that my energies are not being channeled into structures which are actually changing the world, they're just chattering about those structures.



Is Pragmatism a Panacea?

In the past, I've advocated universal pragmatism. I think you should evaluate each situation on its own merits and weigh each possible outcome independently of the ideas associated with it. I think that for many people, ideology is the death of thought. And in that, I've internalized any political party as a dead-end, a misguided waste of energy.

BUT -- here's another image of that attitude:

The left and right wing are like heavyweight champions, squaring off in a boxing match. Isn't the pragmatic approach a bit like saying "They're both great athletes, why do they have to fight over who's best?" You spag, without the fight, there is no decision! It seems like I'm more bitching about the process, the theater, than any actor within it. Isn't that a waste of breath too?

It's been said that we are powerless as individuals, we are generally only empowered when we act as groups. Individuals are easy to neutralize - groups exist at a scale of magnification which can meaningfully affect society. By not joining a team, don't you lose your voice?



Russian Dolls

In my exploration of memetics, I've come to regard life as universal. We're all part of the same organism. Whether we look like individuals or organs within a larger beast is based purely on your scale of magnification. The cell is an individual in the political theater of the self. The individual is a cell in the political party organism. A political party is just one organ in the body of America. The nation is an individual while still being a component of the world organism.

I visualize the American political theater as a big brain. There are two lobes, and each lobe has numerous subystems (finance, religion, the homosexual agenda, etc). All of these systems are in competition for control of the body. What does the body do? Ultimately, it depends on which system can beat the other systems. We, as a body, will perform the behavior which nets the best rewards. (Behavioral psychologists call this the Melioration Principle)

If I am an individual system within that brain, I can win or lose. I measure my success by whether or not my position affected the body.

If I am the person whose brain it is, my overall actions don't make sense in terms of wins or losses, even though every movement is the result of some internal struggle. Would you ever say, "I would have a better life if I got rid of half my brain"? No, you need that internal antagonism in order to make good decisions. In many ways, your reality is generated by the tension between your drives. Without that internal tension, we're little more than automatons.



So what are we?

Do I regard myself as an individual within the world? Or should I be focused on the well being of the higher self - that is, the larger systems which I am a component of? These concepts are often at odds. Taxes, for example, harm me as an isolated individual, but they are the lifeblood of numerous causes and programs I like.

So I have to find a balance in what I identify with. I have to keep one foot here in the material world of horrible jobs, and another foot in the higher world of our egregores.

My thinking today is that pragmatism can only work if you can assume that balance, that tai-chi.

Earlier, I said that our reality emerges from the tension between opposed camps.

Today I want to frame that tension not as a split between left and right ... but as a tension between the small individual and the big individual. The cell and the organ. The self and the collective.



All Hail Discordia

[Pæs]

 
And a reply to follow ze thread. Nice stuff, Cram.

[Triple Zero]

Got around to reading this with some attention yesterday. Good stuff. Don't have a lot to add right now.

[Roly Poly Oly-Garch]

The Two Man Con


I visualize the American political theater as a big brain. There are two lobes, and each lobe has numerous subystems (finance, religion, the homosexual agenda, etc). All of these systems are in competition for control of the body. What does the body do? Ultimately, it depends on which system can beat the other systems. We, as a body, will perform the behavior which nets the best rewards. (Behavioral psychologists call this the Melioration Principle)

---

Today I want to frame that tension not as a split between left and right ... but as a tension between the small individual and the big individual. The cell and the organ. The self and the collective.



All Hail Discordia

2 months later and all.

First point is assuming that that brain is not damaged, and that the cells are not malignant. Dunno. Got a hope.

Second point. I've been looking into this a lot. Have you studied the Catholic Subsidiarity principles at all? To me, these hit the nail on the head. I really feel that the only way to prevent the overarching authority from eventually stomping the local authorities is to not convene higher authorities at all, until they are called on. I will probably get knocked around hard for this, but U.S. Hegemony is the single greatest threat to the state of the U.S. right now. I'm not sure about most other nations, but the NWO scenarios and such (provided a gigantic 20 headed satanic beast doesn't jump out to own the whole thing), is, I feel better for the American people than national sovereignty as it stands.

And yeah. The end-all and be-all of this whole question is rationality, balance, harmony, etc. All exclusively under individual jurisdiction. An incredibly well thought out and presented piece. Looks like you're doing your part.

[Cramulus]

Have you studied the Catholic Subsidiarity principles at all? To me, these hit the nail on the head. I really feel that the only way to prevent the overarching authority from eventually stomping the local authorities is to not convene higher authorities at all, until they are called on.

No, I hadn't heard of that term before. Interesting!

quoth wikipedia------------

Subsidiarity is an organizing principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority. Political decisions should be taken at a local level if possible, rather than by a central authority. [1] The Oxford English Dictionary defines subsidiarity as the idea that a central authority should have a subsidiary function, performing only those tasks which cannot be performed effectively at a more immediate or local level.

Interesting idea... I wonder if it would work when applied to government.

If we were to move towards subsidarity, we'd have a struggle to decide what issues are "big government" issues and which are "local government" issues.

The theater of mutual antagonism would shift to the tension between the local and the federal state organs.

My guess? Two conflicting species of patriots would emerge:
-The local hero who defends his community against the nanny-state ("Not in my backyard!")
-The martyr who believes sacrifice (taxes et al) is necessary for our communal survival ("Think of the children!")

I think that there are injustices and prejudices which would be preserved by this system. Topics like slavery, same sex marriage, and cruel treatment of prisoners sound like localized issues, but they can only be countered if they are under the jurisdiction of the Big State.

Corporations, which can do business in many states at once, would be given an advantage by this tension. If they're doing something which isn't in the public interest (creating tons of pollution, as an example), they can push all their wrongdoing into the states with the weakest local governments. They will get people to defend them by emphasizing the small/big state tension. "EPA regulations kill local jobs!"

[Prelate Diogenes Shandor]

I really feel that the only way to prevent the overarching authority from eventually stomping the local authorities is to not convene higher authorities at all, until they are called on.

I concur

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

My mother explained the two party system to me thusly:

Republicans think that Government ruins everything it touches; Democrats think that Big Business ruins everything it touches. They're both right.

[Cain]

The benefits of localism are that, should your government turn wicked and oppressive, its reach will be limited by a lack of resources, and so it can be easily toppled by a few determined individuals.

The problem with localism is that these few determined individuals could be white power skinheads.  FOX News viewers (unlikely though - a certain amount of athleticism is involved in revolutionary activity) or even Bronies.  The other downside is, while government is easy to remove because you know where everyone lives, the opposite is also true.

The United States has a particular dynamic whereby Federal power has been the bulwark against abuses at the state level.  This dynamic also played out in Europe, where absolute rulers were the response to the vissictudes of feudal life.  In a country like France, where the aristocracy was strong, life was determined almost entirely on the say of your liege lord.  And given your liege was likely an inbred maniac plotting to seize the throne of France in bloody rebellion, this tended to not work out well for most people.

Conversely, in places like England, the aristocracy was smashed through the consolidation of power in the office of the King, assisted by a number of prolonged wars (ironically mostly in France).  Political consolidation of power led to a more uniform standard of living and justice.  Not necessarily better, that still relied on the factors that influenced the court and the monarch themselves, but certainly less arbitrary than pure feudal rule.

Political consolidation also had military advantages.  Being able to levy uniform taxes and rely on an army that was not supplied by scheming rivals for the throne usually led to greater victory in the field.  England managed to win against the French despite their much larger population (3 times that of England) in the early battles of the Hundred Years War precisely because of this superior ability to coordinate and effectively use resources.

Which is another point: if a more diversified polity is still desired, that neighbours may seek to annexe or otherwise subjugate you through this cannot be ruled out.  An ideal society that is conquered through the embodiment of its own ideals is rather pathetic, unless a kind of self-defeating pacifism is the order of the day.

This is precisely why the Articles of Confederation in the USA were eventually discarded in favour of the current arrangement.  It was feared, and rightly so, that France, Britain and Spain were spreading covert influence through the United States as so to reclaim or claim the territory via stealth.

It's not so simple as big government = bad, or good, or even that small government = better, or worse.  It's that there are no hard and fast rules that link size of government with desirable methods of rule.  Large governments can be efficient (Sweden) or inefficient (the USSR).  Small governments can also be efficient (Hong Kong) or hideously inefficient (pretty much every tribal group in history).

The whole thing's a red herring to disguise the fact that there are no final solutions in politics.  No perfect system, no hard and fast rules for success.