Two Pillars
In contrast to the previous post, wherein I attacked two of the longest standing American political organizations and the structures which created them, this post is a bit more positive.
And it again talks about two things.
In this case, the two things I want to talk about are "Liberal" and "Conservative", though I don't think that those words are sufficient for the concepts I want to discuss. I want to talk about the competition between two abstract groups:
1) Those who want to change the bad things
2) Those who want to protect the good things
Now, on the surface, it seems like these two groups have a lot in common. They want things to be good. In fact, they generally are complementary, and in no way have to fight. But they do.
They fight because it is difficult to figure out what is good or bad, and so they end up as:
1) Those who want to change things (especially bad things), aka Explorers - the political and social Offense
2) Those who want to protect things (especially the good things), aka Preservers - the political and social Defense
A great many arguments can be framed in this sense:
* Women's right to vote - Explorers say "yes, please". Preservers say "no, thank you".
* Stem Cell research - Explorers say "yes, please". Preservers say "no, than you".
* Lowering Taxes (Preserving existing wealth) - Explorers say no. Preserves say yes.
* Requiring a prescription for certain drugs - Explorers No. Preservers Yes.
* Speed Limits - Explorers No. Preservers Yes.
So in general, explorers try to change things, even if they are going well, and preservers try to keep things the same, even when they are going poorly. It is this inefficiency that results in a conflict between the two, and both are necessary to get a good result. Yes, clearly we should all be supremely wise and always know the difference between right and wrong and good and evil, etc., but that doesn't really work.
The role of the explorers is to forge new political and social institutions. To try new things and to fail at them. To err on the side of smashing something good, in the chance that you might discover something better. They increase innovation, which generally increases prosperity.
The role of the preservers is to protect the things that are working. To keep them working well, and to make sure that they don't get lost. They seek to err on the side of keeping something bad, in the chance that letting go of it will be worse. They increase stability, which generally increases prosperity.
If it is too easy to throw away something bad, or too hard to create something good, we have a problem. Furthermore, if we attack the people in the other roles, instead of their ideas, then we make a cultural divide that prevents us from coming to compromise solutions, and encourages scorched earth, winner-take-all, political infighting. Argument is good. It is important. We don't know the answers. The more we talk about them, and try them, and refine them, the better they get.
I am an Explorer. I seek to create new political and social constructs, sometimes more actively than others. I am willing to sacrifice security for freedom. I am willing to shake things up. The idea of dramatic social and political change appeals to me. I hereby renounce any animosity towards any Preserver acting in good faith. I will often heartily disagree, but that isn't a compromise. It is an important aspect of synthesis.
It is critically important for these two groups to respect each other. The Preservers need to let the explorers try things and fail, and occasionally let them take risks. The Explorers need to abandon bad ideas when the Preservers demonstrate that new isn't better. Both sides need to reframe their arguments to try to understand the root cause of their disagreement. Both sides are often right, and often wrong.
If you think that a black person has no right to be the president of the country, regardless of other qualifications, you are wrong. Explorers have figured out that freeing, empowering, and working with black people has made our nation better.
If you think that communism, as implemented in Russia through violent revolution and then totalitarian socialism was good, you are wrong. The Preservers figured out that our government worked better than theirs in nearly every respect, and acted accordingly.
I am an Explorer, and when I Go Off the Reservation, Preservers, it is your responsibility to reign me in, and mine to allow it. When I Strike Gold, it is my responsibility to bring you along, and yours to allow it.
And it again talks about two things.
In this case, the two things I want to talk about are "Liberal" and "Conservative", though I don't think that those words are sufficient for the concepts I want to discuss. I want to talk about the competition between two abstract groups:
1) Those who want to change the bad things
2) Those who want to protect the good things
Now, on the surface, it seems like these two groups have a lot in common. They want things to be good. In fact, they generally are complementary, and in no way have to fight. But they do.
They fight because it is difficult to figure out what is good or bad, and so they end up as:
1) Those who want to change things (especially bad things), aka Explorers - the political and social Offense
2) Those who want to protect things (especially the good things), aka Preservers - the political and social Defense
A great many arguments can be framed in this sense:
* Women's right to vote - Explorers say "yes, please". Preservers say "no, thank you".
* Stem Cell research - Explorers say "yes, please". Preservers say "no, than you".
* Lowering Taxes (Preserving existing wealth) - Explorers say no. Preserves say yes.
* Requiring a prescription for certain drugs - Explorers No. Preservers Yes.
* Speed Limits - Explorers No. Preservers Yes.
So in general, explorers try to change things, even if they are going well, and preservers try to keep things the same, even when they are going poorly. It is this inefficiency that results in a conflict between the two, and both are necessary to get a good result. Yes, clearly we should all be supremely wise and always know the difference between right and wrong and good and evil, etc., but that doesn't really work.
The role of the explorers is to forge new political and social institutions. To try new things and to fail at them. To err on the side of smashing something good, in the chance that you might discover something better. They increase innovation, which generally increases prosperity.
The role of the preservers is to protect the things that are working. To keep them working well, and to make sure that they don't get lost. They seek to err on the side of keeping something bad, in the chance that letting go of it will be worse. They increase stability, which generally increases prosperity.
If it is too easy to throw away something bad, or too hard to create something good, we have a problem. Furthermore, if we attack the people in the other roles, instead of their ideas, then we make a cultural divide that prevents us from coming to compromise solutions, and encourages scorched earth, winner-take-all, political infighting. Argument is good. It is important. We don't know the answers. The more we talk about them, and try them, and refine them, the better they get.
I am an Explorer. I seek to create new political and social constructs, sometimes more actively than others. I am willing to sacrifice security for freedom. I am willing to shake things up. The idea of dramatic social and political change appeals to me. I hereby renounce any animosity towards any Preserver acting in good faith. I will often heartily disagree, but that isn't a compromise. It is an important aspect of synthesis.
It is critically important for these two groups to respect each other. The Preservers need to let the explorers try things and fail, and occasionally let them take risks. The Explorers need to abandon bad ideas when the Preservers demonstrate that new isn't better. Both sides need to reframe their arguments to try to understand the root cause of their disagreement. Both sides are often right, and often wrong.
If you think that a black person has no right to be the president of the country, regardless of other qualifications, you are wrong. Explorers have figured out that freeing, empowering, and working with black people has made our nation better.
If you think that communism, as implemented in Russia through violent revolution and then totalitarian socialism was good, you are wrong. The Preservers figured out that our government worked better than theirs in nearly every respect, and acted accordingly.
I am an Explorer, and when I Go Off the Reservation, Preservers, it is your responsibility to reign me in, and mine to allow it. When I Strike Gold, it is my responsibility to bring you along, and yours to allow it.