Political life at the edge of chaos

[Speck Tater]

Permit me to wax philosophical for a moment:

In mathemeatics there is a field known as dynamical systems theory, colloquially called "chaos theory". Everything interesting that happens, happens at the boundry where order meets chaos. Perfect order is stagnation and perfect chaos is, well, chaotic. Neither extreme is conducive to growth and life.

In living systems, if cellular reproduction ceases, death and stagnation ensue, but unrestrained growth results in cancer. There is a constant battle between the forces of order and the forces of chaos, and if either force gains ascendancy the result is catastrophic.

In another example, those companies that are most succesful are characterized by constant tension between the marketing and engineering departments. If marketing controls the company then creative engineering is sacrificed to follow the fads of marketing so that only "safe" products are created and the company quickly falls behind the technology curve and stagnates. If engineering dominates the company then the creative juices flow and inovation becomes a way of life, but this creative energy is not harnessed and sent to market and, for all its inovation, the company starves for lack of sales. For the company to thrive engineering and marketing must be in a constant state of struggle against each other, with neither force dominating.

In political life the conservative forces resist change and the liberal forces promote inovation, but if either philosophy dominates to the exclusion of the other, social ruin results. If the conservatives suppress all liberal inovation the society stagnates, but if liberal inovation runs unchecked, instability and chaos rule the day.

The stability and vitality of a society depends on the constant tension between these two opposing forces; this life at the edge of chaos. As much as the conservatives are the enemy we love to hate we must recognize that we are both, conservatives and liberals, dependant upon each other to maintain the vitality of our culture and society. Sometimes we venture a bit too far in one direction or the other, but for the most part, we maintain that delicate balance that makes democracy work.

Sometimes we are acutely uncomfortable with all the stress and tension, but such is the nature of life at the edge of chaos. And the only alternative to this dynamic tension is the catastrophic failure of society either in the direction of chaos or in the direction of stagnation.

As we fight the good fight against the forces of conservatism, therefore, let us be ever mindful of the fact that we owe our very existence to the loyal opposition, as they owe their very existence to us. May neither of us ever succeed in completely banishing the other, for in that act would we sow the seeds of our own destruction.

[whirlygigspin]

1. well said

Now, can we get back to having a loyal opposition in DC?
please!!!

[punpirate]

2. I think the analogy with regard to politics is misleading....

Because you seem to suggest that the liberal forces are the analogue to chaos. In fact, politically, the proper analogue for the chaos set would be anarchy.

Liberalism is that force in effect at the margins.

Cheers.

[Speck Tater]

3. Yes, the analogy was a bit contrived, but...

.. I think there is a certain validity to the underlying premise that the dynamic struggle between opposing forces is what maintains the health of the system, even if those opposing forces are not, strictly speaking, analogous to chaos and stagnation, per se.

[RichM]

4. OMG. This is very pretty writing. If you wrote it for English class, I'd

probably give you an 'A,' but as a piece of political analysis, I'd unfortunately have to flunk you.

To pick at the most egregious parts: "for the most part, we maintain that delicate balance that makes democracy work..."
- There's a problem with this. What you are calling "democracy" does NOT actually work at all, except for a small part of the population. It also does not deserve to be called "democracy." It's a plutocracy, which is not remotely the same thing.

Moreover, your well-intentioned little ode could just as well be applied to, say, the relationship between slaves and slave-owners. You could write a lovely sonnet about how the slaves really need their owners, & the owners really need their slaves, so that they all should really rejoice & love each other, since they need each other so much.

Rather than your quaint "May neither of us ever succeed in completely banishing the other," I'd say we should focus on the permanent political obliteration of the rightwing - not on living with them in everlasting harmony.

[NewYorkerfromMass]

7. Behind you 100% here Rich!

for once! "living with them in everlasting harmony"? :puke:

[Adjoran]

5. Excellent post!

No one should misinterpret the meaning of "chaos" in this context. It does not mean "anarchy" in the political sense. "Change which is unpredictable" is closer to the intent.

"Mathematically chaotic systems" are those which are governed by rules, but those rules cannot be determined by observation. A good example is the patterns left on sand by rushing or retreating water: they always have similar swirls, but they are never exactly the same. The exact pattern cannot be predicted, but we can predict that there WILL be a pattern of swirls.

Eradicating conservatism is impossible, as a practical matter due to Hegel's precepts, and because of human nature.

People are afraid of risk, naturally seeking to preserve what they have before seeking further gain. There will always be those who prefer the "old ways of doing things."

Hegel demonstrated that ideas evolve through a dynamic process. First, there is an idea, which he called the "thesis." A natural reaction must occur, opposing any idea, becoming its "antithesis." The battle between pro and con ensues, and results in a compromise solution, or "synthesis," which may be closer to one or the other position, or halfway between the two. This winning "synthesis" then becomes the new "thesis," and inspires its own opposite "antithesis," and the process continues on.

So, it is impossible to "eradicate" conservatism, but it is possible to move it. At one time, the conservative position was that black people should remain slaves. Now it is only that they must not be compensated for slavery. It's not perfect, but it IS progress.

[Emillereid]

6. The sacred balalnce - yin and yang.

[donsu]

8. you forgot to put crime/fraud/empire into your equations

nt

[Snellius]

9. More Hegelian than helpful

"As we fight the good fight against the forces of conservatism, therefore, let us be ever mindful of the fact that we owe our very existence to the loyal opposition, as they owe their very existence to us. May neither of us ever succeed in completely banishing the other, for in that act would we sow the seeds of our own destruction."

Time prevents a due philosophical rebuttal, but the history of the last century makes this dialectical harmony very out of tune.