If one condensed the Holy Bible into the ultimate cliff notes version, it would read simply, “Act ethically, and treat others kindly.” This implies the golden rule, as Jesus directed, my Dad’s version was “treat people as you wish to be treated”, and the fellow that Patrick Swayze played in that movie said, “Be Nice”.
It is sound philosophy for a civilized people, but it also implies a collective. A society, in order to function, must set standards of conduct in order to peacefully coexist. This occurred to me as I was between the Tigress and Euphrates Rivers, the cradle of civilization- the natural limitations of that region forced people into collectives simply to ensure access to water. Civilization and society and standards for coexistence ensured survival.
Access to water is not anything modern societies need to worry on in the modern age, but population explosions place us in proximity to others enough that it is still very good philosophy. Be Nice. The implication is that as a collective, we belong to a group whose interests outweigh our own, and that to be a good citizen we contribute to this collective, by placing other interests with a sense of value.
The more modern, self-empowerment philosophy places individual interests as more important. “Live your own truth”, “Be true to one’s self”, “You are perfect just the way you are”, and other sticky sweet buzzword philosophies ignore the societal standard and are nectar for those practicing the religion of self.
The differences divide us societally. Those that practice religion of self, of “what can society to do for me”; verses those that apply the golden rule, “what can I do for others in society”; cause the divisions which now written appear to be an arrogant statement of the obvious. These divisions have evolved politically, forcing politicians to cater to one set of gross interest sets or the other.
I do not really have to explain this division, which again is obvious. The Left generally practices religion of self (interests) the Right generally adopts standards that are akin to belonging to something larger than self. The Right cannot overcome the attractiveness of self-interest, and are going to lose in November of 24, and earlier- and likely afterwards.
The purpose of this essay is to analyze this future loss of political impact and explain such a loss in advance. It is important for me to say that I have no issue at all with individuals that practice left oriented thinking practices, and I must say religiously practice the “Be Nice” to people, all people, regardless of their interests. Manners do not cost a man a thing, and it is the fabric of my being, treating people of how I wish to be treated. Freedom of this nation, real freedom is that any citizen can do what they want, and I believe this, and am dedicated to this, even when the other citizen is not kind to me in return. Be Nice.
But, it does concern me that the Left has such a lock on our political fortunes, and its strategic impact to this society. What follows are some theories and analysis of how it is working, and how it will work for them.
The Rule of 31. This is a theory of mine that divides the decision makers into factions, roughly in half. I believe that 20% of the people are automatically disposed to be in favor of any particular issue, while an equal 20% are opposed to the same issue. The 60% of the remaining populace is not nearly as zealous, or approach the level of activism that the first two groups of 20% each are disposed. So, each hard-core group of 20 leverages the remainder, and the group that can manage 31% of the remaining voters are those that get their way.
The Right is awful at this. They believe in the rightness of their platform and cannot conceive how any person can dispute their view as a truth. Especially if the truth is scientific, the right is comfortable that every sane person sees the issue the same way, and do not leverage the 60% with nearly enough force.
The Left excels at it. They paint an informational tapestry that tends to ignore reason, promotes feelings, brings us past examples of legitimate American sins to color between the lines, and manages to capture the 1% swing voter into their camp on the basis outside of science. How do they manage such a thing?
The Left Dominates the Narrative.
They are flexible in the face of change, and nearly always have the first and last word, even if the last word is to paint their adversary in an unflattering light. “Hate Monger, Racist, Homophobe, Deplorable, Toxic, Elitest, Money grubbing capitalist”, whatever else ends the argument except a very simple and schoolyard reply of, “Am not” by the Right.
It begins with a position, one that is radical in the sense that it is not a mainstream line of thought. When it is offered a counterpoint, it is greeted with a passionate response, ranging from outraged posturing, to a simple shout down that brings the character of the counter pointer into question. Example, “My son identifies as a cat, and the school is not taking this seriously.” Counter-point, “They cannot take it seriously, because accommodating a whim like foolish notion of a single child would be disruptive to the school’s collective environment.” Response: “Shut the F up you cat hating fascist.”
The right has learned not to comment, because they feel that the debate at this point is neither good faith nor worth the aggravation. The left has sensed this, and because there is now no counterpoint offered, feel as though the position has merit. In fact, it will develop a following. The left absolutely dominates the narrative, because they are willing to go there, while the right has learned to be reluctant.
Solidarity.
The left excels in maintaining the group to the 31st percentile. This is likely their most impressive achievement, as if one considers their platform, one could- and I have- call it a Confederation of Interests. (see Power, this page) https://www.tag-ky.com/2021/02/15/power/
These interests do not necessarily support one another ideologically, but they are dedicated to absolutely support one another in practice. Have those seeking equitable treatment on the basis of race had their effort hampered by those that are more radical with different demands of equality? Even when those groups are clearly at odds with the outcome, stick together.
A few examples come to mind. The Left crusades against “toxic masculinity”, and lined up in great impact of the “Me too” movement. So, the Left is pro-women, and those that are interested to be pro-woman vote Left. But- how can a group be pro-women, and allow men to compete in women’s athletics? How can a group that is pro-woman allow little boys and little girls to use the same restrooms or shower together? Does not this impact “Me Too”? Surely, no individual male would take this position, so he can leer at women in the locker room, right?
I read today that a biological man has just won a women’s power lifting competition, and of course he did. I am personally at a loss to determine how a group can be pro-woman, and then enthusiastically support their marginalization in this manner. Yet, they have, will, and do vote together.
Animal rights groups and activists are absolutely against any form of pain or suffering of animals at the hands of humans. PETA will terrorize any venue that allows electric prods to be used on animals, especially elephants, and protest chickens in closed, tightly packed chicken houses. Yet, the same Confederation has no problem in the world in gouging a sharpened pair of scissors into the brain of a viable human baby a millisecond before they arrive in the world naturally. Isn’t the latter more cruel than the former? Despite these contradictions, they have, will, and do vote together.
I am told the whale people and the windmill people are at odds this moment, as offshore windmills are killing whales. Both interests have their main one at stake. They are at odds, but they will still vote together.
Acceptance/ Forgiveness of the Obvious Lie.
“I did not have sexual relations with that woman.”
That defunding the police and stricter gun control at the same time will not have negatively impact the security of the individual citizen.
That the 61% of Americans that do not pay any income tax, should vote higher taxes for the 39% that do- because it is time that the rich paid their “fair share.”
That the withdrawal from Afghanistan was necessary, proportional, and effective- and not a shameful debacle, or an episode of national cowardice.
That the border is secure.
That illegal immigration is causing no harm to the legal standing or criminal activity within the domestic US.
That dependance on foreign oil won’t result in a rise in fuel prices.
That restrictions or control of firearms of lawful gun owners will have an impact on gun violence.
That we should care about those that are immigrating through the southwestern border, treat those pilgrims with dignity and respect; but say nothing about how the Taliban is torturing those unfortunates that stood beside our men and women for 20 years.
That the military can be made a model for radical social progress, without loss of combat effectiveness or recruiting.
That showcasing sexuality of any sort to children has a positive impact on their growth and education.
That the economy is strong, despite interest rates and inflation.
That tobacco is unhealthy, and should be banned, but marijuana is medicinal.
These positions they defend/ ignore, generates criticism, which flows off the left like water off the back of a duck. The Left has become experts at ignoring these- the obvious lies- even when there is no way that they can be justified, scientifically or otherwise. This is where the notion of “live one’s own truth” excuses those viewpoints that have no basis in reality.
I find it necessary at this point to look to the other side of the election, once the 31 have had their way. Within the confederation of interests, the elected one will have difficulty in formulating a platform that actually does something, and at the same time does not offend his constituency that placed him there.
The outcome of this, are politicians elected to leadership positions that do little to nothing, because little to nothing today can be done without offending someone. This is the real genius of the left standing politician, and why they dominate the political landscape. We have sacrificed the luxury of having candid conversations, as those are hurtful. We’d rather had a do-nothing amorphous blob that does/ says nothing. Surely, there is genius in recognizing this, and why the 31 follow them like rats behind a flute.
These three aspects of consolidating these interests, dominating the narrative, solidarity, and forgiveness of their own missteps, the Left is a formidable force and nearly unbeatable. The Right has not adapted to this, and because of these rigid attitudes, or failure to update their own Federation v. Confederation, will not win in 2023, 24, of in the foreseeable future. Until there is a change in thinking from the Right, the Left will dominate the 31%. In doing so, also dominate the national direction.