The Courtship of Societies (with Political Factions)
To my knowledge, no conservative or pure ideologue has ever really governed American society without leaving a foul, or at best, a neutral taste in the mouth of the general public. It is a failure of the progressives to articulate themselves over the conservatives on the campaign trail and a failure of their ability to govern empirically and effectively over the conservatives and ideologues.
Luckily, the progressives can fix themselves. Conservatives and ideologues will always stick to their idealized visions of how the world is and how the world should be without any serious cross referencing with common reality and how it needs to work in order to produce optimal results. The conservatives and ideologues may be grand at messaging and persuasion. But they’re lousy at doing what is needed for the sake of the public when in government, and thus, are lousy at doing what is in their own interests as leaders of a given society.
In the end, it doesn’t matter who governs a society because every potential faction is going to be bound by their interests to do the same things in the same ways with the same ethos. Politics is just the bs that we have to go through in order to rise above those who will actually tear down a society for the sake of a vision or a dream that never was, never is, and never will be, for priorities that they shouldn’t be having in the first place (if they’re working for their small self interests). We will only know peace when either the conservatives and ideologues will cease to run for office or when society as a whole will reject them on a regular, constant and consistent basis from now, until the end of time and beyond.
The relationship between conservatives and ideologues in government and the rest of society is like an abusive relationship. Society finds them appealing for some reason and keeps coming back to keep them, and then regrets it after they’ve put them in places of power once again. The progressives, meanwhile, make mistakes and generally fail to read situations well when they’re in and out of power, and thus, get rejected from places of power, even though without having empirical senses of policy, they do a better job at governing a society, at the very least, adhering to the ethic of governing better than the conservative or ideological counterparts.
It takes solid messaging and effective communication; knowledge of what turns a society on and what turns a society off at any given moment in order to get into power. That much the conservatives and ideologues are able to do. But it takes a kind of benevolence, care and adherence to the public’s well being in order to keep those seats in the long term (which, btw, becomes the short term in good time.) The progressives have this ethic, if not the actual practice yet, which is how they’re able to fleetingly make an impression on the society, but is unable to secure the society. In the end, even the progressives must be willing to challenge their own policies and beliefs if they want to remain in power indefinitely. The natural laws of the universe may not change, but the society sometimes does. Flexibility, humility and an underlying sense of benevolence and care for the other will see any political faction who governs based on empiricism through to the end of time and beyond.
You do not change reality; you change yourself to better live in the new reality. This applies to societies, governments, individuals and environments. The higher level changes influence and changes what manifests in the lower levels according to the laws and structures of the lower levels. A computer program change will cause changes in the dynamics of the hardware, but not changes in the hardware itself. We are all bound by the environment and the universe. A government is bound by the changes in the society. We change as best as we can to those changes. Otherwise, we, on the individual and collective levels, cease to exist. That is what conservatives and ideologues won’t do. They just push the same buttons and expect the same results without thinking about what the buttons do initially and how the buttons change in function over time. That is how they are unfit to govern a society, in spite of their charm. And, to make matters worse, they don’t change in accordance with the changes in accordance with the changes in knowledge or environment, even after it is apparent that their solutions are incorrect and ineffectual for the sake of anyone, including themselves.
But that’s the truth, as far as I’ve seen and can personally tell.
Think about it.
It’s eerie how close this strikes to how one of my own (failed) relationships went. Indeed, from my perspective, a political faction’s relationship to a society is like that of a coequal marriage or relationship as I’ve seen it done with my parents. The government (which in my case, takes on more of my father’s figure) handles the serious business of the society while the society (which in my case takes on my mother’s qualities) handles nearly everything else. There is overlap, of course, between these two images that I’ve seen modeled and the gender roles can be reversed very easily or not be present at all. This is just a reflection of how I’ve grown up seeing the world as modeled by my parents. It has no bearing or technical relevance in the empirical universe other than what it means to me. Hopefully, you’ll be able to glean something useful from this analogy of coequal and mutual dependence in a relationship.
Think about it.