Left vs Right is a False Choice
Not able or willing to resolve their own problems in the 17th century, the British took it on themselves to conquer the world and thus heal their pain. It did not work. Their pain is now palpable throughout the world.
It never did work. Manifestly unstable, the British and other Northern Europeans took on cultures that were undeniably stable in their own right. Some of these were very large, as in Asia, with China being the most profound example. As we are learning with great dispatch in our times with the availability of records and studies that can match time and circumstance, civilizations have existed for tens of thousands of years that demonstrated not only stability but civility. When the British set out on their inimitable tour of conquest, this was not generally known.
Knowledge of the soundness of the cultures of our distant ancestors is slowly growing. There is increasing awareness of cultures of governance and balance that existed before the fog of time obscured them. The British, it is known, tried to obtain such information in the 14th century, but it was found that the Romans had destroyed all written artifacts of the Greek culture, which had been the principal repository of wisdom as it could be found. What the British did find with respect to Greece and earlier history was in Spain, where Islamic scholars had maintained libraries with versions of the Greek works that were translated into English in some cases — Greek often — and transferred to Oxford, England to be used in the university.
The Greeks had limited knowledge of their own. What they did understand was domination of the land. They worked out formulas for establishing such domination that did not involve monarchy — necessarily. The idea of democracy came of this. Based on some form of acclamation, certain of the citizens of a geographically-determined state could take control and govern for some time in ways that they preferred. Measures were typically taken to modify or direct such rights toward the general good, but it was clear that power so-gained would be absolute within the limits of time and space. The American constitution and all others follow variations of these assumptions.
This ignores a great fact. It is not just authority that needs management and crosschecks, it is knowledge. Knowledge of nature and care for the preferences of each other were natural drivers in the ascent of mankind into advanced society and culture. Those who learned to adapt to nature’s cycles and demands prospered. Those who did not suffered; their cultures languished and many did not survive such challenges.
As seen below, knowledge is directly tied to process. All things in nature are driven by process. They are constantly changing in line with those processes. One of the most satisfying human activity is to investigate and understand such processes. Society is itself a means of defining and overseeing processes that support understanding and helpful behavior — whether they entail holidays and traditional ways of dealing with what came their way. As a rule of thumb, you can see that some cultures grew very large because they were good at this.
On the other end were people — and peoples — who did not want to bother themselves with the understanding of process and repetitive detail — they simply acted, often blindly and arrogantly, to get what they wanted. Based on their prestige in their society — which might include official leadership — they took some satisfaction in assuming such risks. In fact, in many cases, the risks themselves were felt by others who were not shielded by the resources and people that stood between them and reality.
This often did not work. There is a reality in nature that will impose itself with no regard for the preferences of a particular executive. This is true of governments as well as other organizations. A political framework developed out of the British adventures in conquest — the “divide and conquer” tactic that was applied time after time in their effort to subdue if not destroy the cultures, even the civilizations they came across. This might be rival monarchies in places like India or Africa. Where the British saw opportunity, they drove the wedge home. Another example of this was the Sunni vs Shia rivalry — always there, it had been a dispute over which religious texts to use, not the blood sport that emerged after the British and the French drove them to distraction, followed by others.
Resulting from this was the two-party system that is prevalent in many contemporary regimes. This is considered in the United States as a given — a fundamental fact of social life. This is left v right or liberal v conservative. It has even been reduced down to colors (not intended to be significant in the attached graphs). Problematically, this alignment makes things worse as it plays out. People on the left mistrust business while people on the right mistrust government.
This misses the point. The problem is that in either realm, prerogative reigns. Process should be in the forefront. Only in that way can satisfaction be achieved. Emphasis needs to be place in the “north forty”, in the knowing and process sector at the top of the figure. That isn’t just a change in attitude, it is a fact the reflects on a need to respect the knowledge and the work product of people who dedicated their time and attention to such matters.
There is much talk about borders. Borders are important, to be true, but the emphasis is misplaced. It is conceptual borders that is our true contemporary challenge more than physical ones. This is to say that context is of critical importance as well as timing. Processes by their nature exist in time. Knowledge is understood among communities. To the degree that outsiders can storm the gates and take over — if not marginalize — an entire knowledge community, we are uncivilized and unfit to lay claim to the advances achieved by our mothers and fathers. Mark Twain stated the point well when he said that we are all ignorant, just on different subjects. Can you see that it is trust in each other in this regard that is missing?
Technology can and should support this. Communities should do so as well. Following is a rather elaborate view of what that might look like. The phrase dual control refers to a need to combine processes associated with knowledge with those that reflect authority. Fluidity is a means of bringing these into the technology so that the resulting processes can be used where needed by one and all.
There is a flaccid quotation that is more of a reflection of the modern British experimentation with conquest (by the way, a phenomenon known as the “Lockean Heartland”). It is this: “Those who forget history are doomed to repeat history.” The is intended to be shocking, and, indeed, modern history and especially the 20th Century history constitutes more of a trail of tears than a lesson on humanity and civilization. Still, there have been some victories, even if they largely represent a collective pulling of society back from the brink.
The more useful quote is this: “Those who remember history are blessed to repeat history.” This reflects the long arc of progress. It reflects the success which has been enjoyed by countless cultures and peoples — some of them still among us. Our very existence belies many good acts. We all can reflect to some degree on our own roots — in the collective if not with respect to individuals. Over time, there has been more construction than destruction. This is the story everywhere. There are 7.8 billion evidences of this. Sure, sure, that raises other issues, but let’s not forget that it is an evidence of success with respect to this one.