Equilibrium and Compromise in American Politics



"A house divided against itself cannot stand."

   -Abraham Lincoln 


If you want to collapse any system, get it to implode. Get it to collapse itself. Pit the parts of the system against each other and create discord and counterproductivity within the system and turn the gears on themselves. Division collapses even the most well-designed and well intentioned system, no matter how many precautions you take against instability.


 In America's system, our current arrangement of social, economic, racial, and cultural relationships is unsustainable to say the least. It's only a matter of time before far greater instability and loss of life than we have already seen strikes our system.


In a system based on a simple left-right, liberal-conservative dichotomy, achieving stability requires a few things. It requires willingness to sit down at the table and discuss the issues civilly and with genuine care and concern. It requires a level of humility in leadership where the good of the nation comes before the good of the party and the good of the leader (something we are deficient in  to an unacceptable level). It requires cooperation.


   Sustainability and stability can only be achieved in competitive systems by the achievement of an equilibrium between the competitors that eliminates much of the drive towards violence and discord. An equilibrium that leaves a significant chunk of the competitors relatively satisfied with the arrangement. This kind of stability is idealist to say the least, but it has existed in the past, and even in our country.


         There are three ways to achieve an equilibrium of power within a competitive dichotomous system such as what the United States has in its two party system; An overwhelming majority of one of the two parties. True, genuine compromise. Or healthy and effective arbitration between the competing parties. 


 If you have two competitors with a relatively even split of power and support without some level of compromise or arbitration, those two competitors will eventually get belligerent and openly hostile with each other, leading to a destabilization and possible collapse of a system. 


 Its like football with no referees. Football just becomes a brawl and a chaotic mess that's just shy of war with no referees. Referees are arbiters, and in politics if there is no compromise to settle the situation or arbitration to split up the fights and spats, or no complete and dominant outright majority, an evenly split political system will inevitably become violent and destabilized. All it takes is a little stoking of the flames.  


       In the American system of government, the judicial branch was supposed to be the arbiter between the other branches in some forms and situations. It was supposed to be the nonpartisan interpreter and "referee" of American government. Unfortunately, ideological politics have seeped into even that branch. A volatile recipe, since if the arbiter or "referee" is biased and divided, then the system can't sustain stability. 


     Creating an equilibrium is difficult, but you can create multiple equilibriums on multiple fronts. You can create social equilibriums, cultural equilibriums, political equilibriums, economic equilibriums, class equilibriums, etc. if you just find a way to foster compromise and harmony within the system.  


All an equilibrium is is just a healthy balance of power within a system where the goal and purpose of that system is achieved more smoothly and more harmoniously. Easier said than done, but we see equilibriums form all the time. If we are creative, or if we are lucky, we can form them in systems that can stabilize and restore damaged and discord-ridden relationships.


What a beautiful thing that would be, to bring stability to unstable systems.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

No One is a Lost Cause

The Fortress of Neptune

Infinitization