Have you come across the works by Francis Fukuyama, in particular The Origin of Political Order? It's hands down one of my favourite books on how political structures form across the world, what contributes to them, and how they evolve. It's like Sapiens, but for political structures.
Yes! The tension in the dialectic is how we grow. Tension leads us to insight and movement forward. Hegel was helpful that thesis-antithesis-synthesis can be a wonderful progression.
HOWEVER, I do not believe we do not have 2 parties in the US anymore. The tension of ME/WE is all contained in the Democratic Party, in a very flawed way. The GOP has gone full Necropolitics, focusing only the aggrandizement of the privileged class. Blue voting provides a chance for the future (and a TON of work ahead). Red voting collapses the dialectic. My two cents in conversation with you, Baird. I really, really like your writing. I've just grown up in a Republican family and now see that the GOP is nothing like what the party of personal responsibility (ME) was.
And - I'm open to learning more with you :) Keep writing and moving us onward!
I love how you've framed politics as this ongoing balancing act. It's true that we're constantly trying to find that sweet spot between self interest and community good. And you're right, that balance point is always shifting, which explains why politics can feel so... well, unstable sometimes. I am trying to be kind because it's Friday, Baird lol
I'm a huge fan of the concept of yin and yang. I think the universe always bends towards equilibrium, but you are right, seldom do we achieve it. The important thing is to keep striving for it and operating within a close enough band.
Cynicism is warranted these days! I think "we" do default to a ME orientation except for (sometimes) blood kin and shared severe threats. I miss the Soviet Union/Evil Empire for that common enemy.
"Debate and discussion and negotiation and elections are channels...." Not to be too cynical, Baird, but unfortunately too few in our society or any society are capable of engaging in debate, discussion, and negotiation and relatively few participate in elections. The result is that the debate, etc. occurs between a small proportion of our population and the policy that results is not representative of the whole. In some ways, the perpetual wars that our species engages in, in order to achieve perpetual peace (See Gore Vidal's pamphlet of the same title) are a result of our inability to appreciate and sometimes accept views that deviate from our own. I like your Me/We dichotomy but I think that in the end it will be skewed dramatically to the ME, not because we are inherently selfish and acquisitive, but because we are not evolutionarily programmed to plan ahead and are therefore poorly equipped to understand that ensuring an equitable society is in our long term best interests (WE benefits ME).
Setting aside the excellent Darwinian quotes, this brilliant essay provides a number that are eminently quotable.. that about running away from Either/Or frames for one, that of the irritable dialectics for another. Well done, Baird! The ME/WE characterization of our two major parties is a very fruitful way to examine their actions. But politics and politicians are so... hypocritical. They'll jettison their principles in a trice if that serves whatever ends they currently are pursuing. We've had political parties that were profoundly disinterested in dyadic conflicts but in our sad land such parties never survived for long. They were ruthlessly suppressed by the rules of aggregating power and suppressing it, imposed by what Saint Nader once called the "Duoarchy.". I know whereof I speak, I once was in the ranks of the Peace and Freedom Party, now lost to living memory.
Thanks Michael! I appreciate your shedding light on hypocrisy and corruption as two animating forces in our politics.
Good to see you mention Ralph Nader. His rep was tarnished (unfairly) in the Bush v. Gore fiasco, but he has been right about most everything for 50 years. A pre-Bernie Sanders. Talk about a prophet wandering in the wilderness ...
Baird, thanks for what I think is a appropriately broad and useful frame. Reminds me of a book published many years ago by George Lakeoff, "Don't Think of an Elephant". When I have the time I will share more and I will try to keep in mind this is a dialectic , not a diatribe....
Have you come across the works by Francis Fukuyama, in particular The Origin of Political Order? It's hands down one of my favourite books on how political structures form across the world, what contributes to them, and how they evolve. It's like Sapiens, but for political structures.
Thanks Scott!
Yes! The tension in the dialectic is how we grow. Tension leads us to insight and movement forward. Hegel was helpful that thesis-antithesis-synthesis can be a wonderful progression.
HOWEVER, I do not believe we do not have 2 parties in the US anymore. The tension of ME/WE is all contained in the Democratic Party, in a very flawed way. The GOP has gone full Necropolitics, focusing only the aggrandizement of the privileged class. Blue voting provides a chance for the future (and a TON of work ahead). Red voting collapses the dialectic. My two cents in conversation with you, Baird. I really, really like your writing. I've just grown up in a Republican family and now see that the GOP is nothing like what the party of personal responsibility (ME) was.
And - I'm open to learning more with you :) Keep writing and moving us onward!
Thanks for reading and for your very thought-full and generous comments Hans. Great to have you along for the ride!
I love how you've framed politics as this ongoing balancing act. It's true that we're constantly trying to find that sweet spot between self interest and community good. And you're right, that balance point is always shifting, which explains why politics can feel so... well, unstable sometimes. I am trying to be kind because it's Friday, Baird lol
Hope you have a happy one.
Sadly, the balance point often isn't sweet. But TGIF always is. Enjoy Neela!
I'm a huge fan of the concept of yin and yang. I think the universe always bends towards equilibrium, but you are right, seldom do we achieve it. The important thing is to keep striving for it and operating within a close enough band.
I think humans default to ME much more than WE. That works, until it doesn't.
Cynicism is warranted these days! I think "we" do default to a ME orientation except for (sometimes) blood kin and shared severe threats. I miss the Soviet Union/Evil Empire for that common enemy.
"Debate and discussion and negotiation and elections are channels...." Not to be too cynical, Baird, but unfortunately too few in our society or any society are capable of engaging in debate, discussion, and negotiation and relatively few participate in elections. The result is that the debate, etc. occurs between a small proportion of our population and the policy that results is not representative of the whole. In some ways, the perpetual wars that our species engages in, in order to achieve perpetual peace (See Gore Vidal's pamphlet of the same title) are a result of our inability to appreciate and sometimes accept views that deviate from our own. I like your Me/We dichotomy but I think that in the end it will be skewed dramatically to the ME, not because we are inherently selfish and acquisitive, but because we are not evolutionarily programmed to plan ahead and are therefore poorly equipped to understand that ensuring an equitable society is in our long term best interests (WE benefits ME).
Setting aside the excellent Darwinian quotes, this brilliant essay provides a number that are eminently quotable.. that about running away from Either/Or frames for one, that of the irritable dialectics for another. Well done, Baird! The ME/WE characterization of our two major parties is a very fruitful way to examine their actions. But politics and politicians are so... hypocritical. They'll jettison their principles in a trice if that serves whatever ends they currently are pursuing. We've had political parties that were profoundly disinterested in dyadic conflicts but in our sad land such parties never survived for long. They were ruthlessly suppressed by the rules of aggregating power and suppressing it, imposed by what Saint Nader once called the "Duoarchy.". I know whereof I speak, I once was in the ranks of the Peace and Freedom Party, now lost to living memory.
Thanks Michael! I appreciate your shedding light on hypocrisy and corruption as two animating forces in our politics.
Good to see you mention Ralph Nader. His rep was tarnished (unfairly) in the Bush v. Gore fiasco, but he has been right about most everything for 50 years. A pre-Bernie Sanders. Talk about a prophet wandering in the wilderness ...
Baird, thanks for what I think is a appropriately broad and useful frame. Reminds me of a book published many years ago by George Lakeoff, "Don't Think of an Elephant". When I have the time I will share more and I will try to keep in mind this is a dialectic , not a diatribe....
Thanks Mark! Always glad to hear your thoughts on such matters.