You Want Wings With That?

I was scanning through some news stories about the U.S., Canada, Israel, and a whole grab-bag of others. Over and over you read about the left-wing this, or the right-wing that–usually as epithets, not descriptives. Frankly, it’s getting on my nerves. Maybe it’s because I’m a dyed in the wool moderate, but I’ve never been able to embrace the notion that there are only two points of view, and that you have to be on one side or the other. It’s boring. It also doesn’t work very well.

Unfortunately, it’s only by polarization that a group is able to obtain and perpetuate power and influence. It’s also so much easier. Why try to examine all points of view and then come to a decision when it’s easier to look at your party’s platform and simple pick from a list? Why try to listen to a variety of points of view when the only people who matter are those who can get you more power and influence?

I don’t think it would be so bad if the basic system wasn’t so ubiquitous. No matter whose borders you are surrounded by, the ones in power never doubt that their path is the true and proper one. Whether it be a mandate from some scripture, or a mandate of I’m-in-power-and-your-not, the basic plan is the same: either you are us, or you aren’t us–and being us is so much better. The only real difference is the numbers. The us vs not-us factions are usually designated as being of opposing wings on the political spectrum. If the numbers are close to even, then you have something that resembles a modern democracy; if the number overwhelming favor one wing, then you have what is commonly known as a dictatorship. The way you change the former is via elections; changing the later generally requires a revolt (which works in the first case, too).

Doing the same thing over and over again when it’s been proven to not work is totally insane. It isn’t supposed to be about one side or the other winning, but about governing. The reality is somewhat different. Looking at Congresses and Parliaments and whatever else you want to call them, it all boils down to bureaucracies existing solely to perpetuate themselves. The best way is to look only to your own narrow political interests and ignore those who might argue in opposition. They don’t matter. Only the bureaucracy matters. It. Must. Prevail. In this task government bodies do an extremely good job. So maybe, just maybe, it _does_ work. Just not for anyone outside these select societies. Maybe not so insane after all.

Is there any realistic solution? Probably not. Moderates are dull and boring. Great change is wrought in the fire of passionately opposing forces. Political parties are inevitable–we humans love forming coalitions of like-minded people. So…how about this: once you are in "the club" of Congress (say), you must cut ties with whatever party got you elected. Your party is now "incumbent". The funding thing gets a little complicated, but no more so than the mess it is now. The thing is, without a party banner to hide behind, you are more accountable for what you do since there would always be two opponents come election time. The trick to reform is to acknowledge that polarizing self-interest is inevitable. The trick is to guide the raging torrents of ideological and political preservation so that intrinsically opposing forces must balance one another.

The forming of checks-and-balances between three branches of government was a brilliant strategy of using people’s innate weaknesses to balance the whole. It needs be the same in the more directly political arena–three, not just two, very powerful forces all vying for the same job. Right vs Left vs Incumbent (ideally with a set of term limits…but that’s another entry). Two wings fighting again the bird. The mind boggles at the possibilities.