Dancing on the Icy Brink: Polarized Politics

I have recently (the last few years) wrestled with the labyrinth of politics, trying to grasp the perspectives of the different modes of thought that accompany political parties, regimes, ideologies, governments, legal systems, moral codes, etc. The experience has been akin to being lost in the thorn bushes…poked at every turn and not being able to find a clear path to anywhere.

For most of my adult life, I thoughtlessly voted for whichever Democrat was running for whichever office – because my parents and grandparents were Democrats. Being of a somewhat liberal and giving nature myself, it seemed to fit. In recent years, I have had time to pay more attention and have come to realize how shallow my understanding has been around political issues even though they strongly affect the quality of our collective daily life. But I have been lost in the wilderness of identity politics, divisive politics, gender politics, racial politics, “special snowflake” politics, Politically Correct politics - and most of all – the exploding extremism characterized by enraged accusations of hatred, bigotry, ignorance, stupidity, “privilege,” launched by all sides against anyone who deviates even the slightest from whatever the group-think happens to be. This has generated what might be called a psychic disturbance in the background of my daily existence, as I realize that we are in the midst of an upheaval that may soon morph into an uprising – and then only God knows what happens to us next.

My personal quest is always for understanding, for clarity. When I get it, I relax – even if I can’t personally change things, I do understand what is going on and can respond accordingly as circumstances arise – even as I remember the statement: “Understanding is the booby prize.”. I ground myself by planting both feet firmly on the top of my head. It doesn’t allow for much forward movement, but it does make me feel better!

My grounding philosophy has to do with the dynamics of duality, the core characteristic of our material universe, and the ever-changing balance between the two poles. Before going further into our current political polarizations, let me digress into articulating those dynamics as I understand them.

Dissolve and Coagulate -> Philosopher’s Stone

Chaos and Order -> Phase Dimension

Energy and Matter -> Manifest Universe

Electrical and Magnetic -> Current

Oneness and Separateness -> Constancy

Yin and Yang -> Life

Wealthy and Poor -> Middle Class

The manifest world/universe of our human perception and experience is one of duality characterized and bounded by opposite poles/polarities. Like the body of our planet, all manifestation oscillates between the two polarities. Life flourishes in the equatorial, temperate region midway between the two poles, diminishing to a minimum as it approaches the extremities.

This middle region where the FLOW of energy and life moves most freely is known as the Phase Dimension in the science of Complexity. It is known as Constancy in the psychology of Object Relations in which the individual oscillates between competing needs for Oneness and Separateness. It is known as a Current in an Electromagnetic Field. In the world of human societies, it is the middle class which thrives when society manages to avoid the extremes of equality and individuality, of wealth and power for a few vs. poverty and subservience for the many.

The creation is ongoing, moment by moment. Unless marooned at one pole or its opposite, there is a continuous movement of energy and matter oscillating between the poles – and continuously re-balancing. This is the infamous “pendulum swing” noted in the recurring themes and interactions of life.

Frank Waters noted many years ago, in his studies of the Indians of Northern Mexico, that their sense of time was governed by the oscillation of the planet, in its annual journey around the sun, by wobbling to the North in the summer and to the South in the winter. This wobble or oscillation beween poles reoccurs every 12 months without fail as the Earth tilts toward the sun and then away from it, creating the seasons (and their opposites in the Southern Hemisphere). The tilt creates far more extreme changes in length of daylight and temperature at the poles than at the equator which registers comparatively mild shifts. As a result of this observation, their sense of time was one of continuity rather than the absolute and brief cycle of the 24-hour day where the sun appears and then disappears. In the spiraling motion of the earth toward the sun and away from it during the year, the sun (source of life) never entirely disappears but rather moves closer and then away. This informed their conclusion that life never ends, but simply becomes more remote in the form of ancestors who in time may reappear with another turn of the spiral.

This ancient perception of the eternal interplay of opposites, the spiraling dance of the stars without aim or destination but simply for the sake of being, has been superseded in our time by a different perception. Humanity now tends to see life and death, good and evil, day and night, male and female as competing and opposing in a more absolute sense rather than as the touchpoints along a continuum of being. By touchpoint, I mean that arrival at the extreme of one of a pair of opposites compels a reversal of momentum, back toward the other pole. The pendulum effect. For me this is best illustrated by the electromagnetic field. As an electrical wave reaches its maximum, it generates a magnetic wave at the minimum. As the electrical wave declines and the magnetic wave increases, they meet and cross. The magnetic wave increases to the maximum and the electric wave decreases to the minimum. Just when you think it must “die” from exhaustion and disappear, it is re-generated by its relationship to the magnetic wave, now at maximum. The electrical wave begins to increase while the magnetic wave starts its descent and decrease until they meet in the middle – and so on and so on. This perpetual dance creates a dynamic field, the Electromagnetic Field. And, at the points where the two waves continue to meet, their interaction creates a flow of energy we know as an electrical current. This current is the life flow. Without it, life would not exist.

We see the same dynamic flow in the Object Relations theory of Developmental Psychology by Margaret Mahler. She posits that the human experience is contained between two poles, Oneness and Separateness. We have equally strong drives to merge with another (Oneness) and to be fully individual and self-contained (Separateness). When a child, over the course of the first 2 ½ years of life, develops the ability to move between the two poles or drives with relative fluency (i.e., “good enough”), the flow of experience stabilized by the dynamic balance obtained is known as Constancy. Sometimes we want to be as close as possible with another, and sometimes we want to be left completely alone. To be stuck in either state for prolonged periods is like trying to go forward in life on one foot only. You may be able to hop forward, but it is awkward, difficult and slow as well as exhausting.

The new science of Complexity looks at the states of absolute Order and absolute Chaos, and then finds the Phase Dimension where life flourishes in the middle region where the two meet and complexity is the interaction between these opposite states. Both Order and Chaos are simple because they are absolute. Neither one can support life, which can only occur when and where they engage with each other. The Chinese concept of the Yin and the Yang echoes this realization.

The flow of life follows the same pattern. The alchemists followed the formula of “Dissolve and Coagulate,” recognizing that matter forms and then dissolves and then reforms in an ongoing cyclical manner similar to the electrical and magnetic waves. Einstein expressed the same realization a little more elegantly with E=mc2, or matter and energy are equivalent, continually changing from one state to the other but without actual loss or diminishment. Constancy.

So we see that the dance of life, of the energetic-material universe, is one of Flow, most productive when in the range of Constancy. I think of my marriage of 45 years and how we now inhabit that region most of the time, resulting in a happy existence for both of us. By bouncing off the extremes at different times over the years, we found and embraced the rich and substantive life of co-existing in the temperate zone, in the Phase Dimension.

If Flow is the essential characteristic of the dynamic, ever-changing balance of opposites, the question then arises: “Is the Flow going somewhere?” Is it linear or circular? Does it have an arc – or is it repetitive, cyclical? Is it purposive or aimless? Is the point to arrive or to be? To reach a destination or enjoy the journey? Is it evolutionary or revolutionary (as in revolving)? If all things reach their peak and then decline, why bother since every goal attained will fade into insignificance?

Somehow it seems to me that we are missing the point, if there is a point – which there may not be!

Recently I happened to read two essays or blogs, a day apart. Both were inspired by Obama’s speech in Japan regarding Hiroshima. The first one was by Charles Krauthammer, called “The Arrow of History” in the Washington Post. In it he noted that Obama believes in the arrow or arc of history, and that it “bends toward justice.” It struck me almost immediately that this is an ideology with which I am very familiar – the evolution of consciousness. In Obama’s case, he strains toward a more “evolved” and “humane” international system. This clearly is rooted in Darwin and the evolution of the species. People who share Obama’s form of idealism believe that the right construct of human governance on a global scale will create a peaceful world – a vision of cooperation and coordination on an international scale. He hopes for “some enduring progress in the world order.” The default is to governing, as the Progressives have given up on the “evolution” of the human species as a whole and perceive the failure of the great religions to facilitate that moral and ethical evolution in a sustained way.

Krauthammer then points out the polarity to this evolutionary view of history, which is the realist view that history is cyclical rather than an arrow with a destination. “It is an endless cycle of clashing power politics. The same patterns repeat. Only the names and places change. The best we can do in our own time is to defend ourselves, managing instability and avoiding catastrophe (i.e., seek Constancy). But expect nothing permanent, no essential alteration in the course of human affairs.”

What I also found interesting is that Krauthammer pointed out that liberals and conservatives have their own version of the Idealistic Future. The Bill Clinton (liberal) view “believes that the creation of a dense web of treaties, agreements, transnational institutions and international organizations (such as the U.N., NGOs, the World Trade Organization) can give substance to a cohesive community of nations that would, in time, ensure order and stability.” This is the Progressive, New World Order view that is close to Obama’s vision. It strives to structure a peaceful world through a web of closely-woven relationships and inter-dependencies, having given up on the perfectibility of humankind and seeking it instead in a new international system of governance. However, Obama’s “arc of justice” has not brought justice or peace – quite the contrary.

The conservative approach to the Idealistic Future is that promulgated by the neo-conservatives and George W. Bush. This view believes that spreading democracy throughout the globe is the best strategy for evolving a more peaceful world, as democracies appear to be “more inclined to live in peace.” As we’ve seen, trying to impose “democracy” in cultures and nations unprepared for it has not gone well.

The problem with both versions of the Idealistic Future is that their adherents are utterly convinced that humanity can arrive in “the sunny uplands of international harmony” if only given the right impetus and structure. “But what unites them is the belief that such uplands exist and are achievable.”

“For realists, this is a comforting delusion that gives high purpose to international exertions where none exists. Sovereign nations remain in incessant pursuit of power and self-interest. The pursuit can be carried out more or less wisely. But nothing fundamentally changes.”

Relevant to my opening paragraphs, it is interesting for me to note that the “democracy” approach risks death by the Chaos of mob rule, while the “globalization” approach risks death by imposing a global “Order” or governance that will suffocate human enterprise and freedoms in its quest to control human behaviors that may be hurtful to anyone anywhere.

The realist seeks life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – the chance to forge a life path by choice and industrious effort – knowing that there are no guarantees, that life is full of risk, and that growth into the fullness of being human comes with moving forward anyway.

The idealist seeks fraternity, equality and liberty. Fraternity is brotherhood, belonging; equality is sharing the good so all can participate without stratification of outcomes; and liberty is being free of want or hurt (hence we get safe spaces and PC speech and government life support).

The second essay/blog that spoke to me was written by one of my favorite thinkers, Richard Fernandez, “Hiroshima as Gun Control,” on PJ Media.com. Instead of hearing Obama’s speech as an apology, Fernandez had another perspective: “It is an interpretation of recent human history not as a contest between good versus evil, as the WW2 generation saw it, but as an indictment of poor global human governance.” Here’s that global governance thing again.

Obama’s view is that “…war is old. It was the Atomic Bomb which was new and therefore destabilizing. Those who brought this unregulated thing into the world thus assumed a huge responsibility…at a stroke the great moral issues of WW 2 are reduced to a narrative in which everyone – including militaristic Japan, Nazi Germany, Facist Italy, Soviet Russia – were alike victims of age-old human passions enabled by revolutionary weaponry. No one is guilty. We are all just victims. But facts have to be faced, Obama argued. Since a “moral revolution” cannot be effected by the great religions which falsely promise a pathway to love while offering only a license to kill, then man is irredeemable without government.” (!!!!!!)

Obama said: “Technological progress without an equivalent progress in human institutions can doom us. The scientific revolution that led to the splitting of the atom requires a moral revolution as well.”

His solution? As much more government as necessary to make us all safe from new “things” that might hurt us. Planetary arms-control. Same idea as gun control. If we just get rid of the nukes (like personal possession of guns at home), then war won’t be able to hurt us. We will have neutered it. Just like in Chicago.

He went on to echo the Clintonian/Liberal view of the Idealistic Future:

The United States and Japan have forged not only an alliance but a friendship that has won far more for our people than we could ever claim through war. The nations of Europe built a union that replaced battlefields with bonds of commerce and democracy. Oppressed people and nations won liberation. An international community established institutions and treaties that work to avoid war and aspire to restrict and roll back and ultimately eliminate the existence of nuclear weapons.

Except it hasn’t worked out that way for more than a generation or two. And it ignores what was so evident to those who were alive for WW2. Oppressive ideologies (i.e., fanaticism) that birthed totalitarian governments were choking Europe and the Far East. Fernandez writes:

The historical WW2 generation did not fight for more government but, on the contrary, to end a fanaticism which had run amuck. They realized more acutely than we moderns that ideology meant the death of the body because it involved the death of the mind…

The modern idea is that fanaticism is overrated. It is things we must beware of. We are less wary of ideologies…ideology is with us still with the same potent certainty it possessed in the 1940’s. It is still as sure as ever it will succeed however frequently it fails, in China, Russia, Cambodia, Cuba or North Korea. The president’s own party has a 2016 candidate who advocates the same policies that are destroying Venezuela without worrying it will do the same in America because Sanders is smarter than Maduro. Many of the president’s European allies are importing radical Islamists in gigantic numbers into their societies confident that EU “human institutions” can handle it, sure in the same way the Emperor knew the Divine Wind would repel the 3rd Fleet… We are safe in our multicultural world against good and evil, which are only social constructs after all. Only let us control the human institutions and all will be well.

This is a blind faith in the power of government on a global scale to accomplish what has never been accomplished for more than two or three generations in the history of the world. It will stop the proliferation of “things” that could destroy us (and/or our environment) through regulation and external controls. By creating one homogenous human family, it will dissolve differences that lead to conflicts and, eventually, to wars. We will all be equally mixtures of brown, with equal material goods and pleasures dispensed by the State – except, of course, some will still be more equal than others. By dismantling the world’s religions, government will step into the void and provide the moral authority and direction needed for the salvation of humanity. It is the religion of modernity. It denies the power of the person and gives the power first to weapons/things – and then, necessarily, to the State to control and direct both.

Does anyone else hear an echo here? God help us.

To go full circle and come back to the dance of polarities as the template of the world as we know it, what does the dance look like now?

The Idealists are united, regardless of political party or approach (democracy or globalization) to our future. They are sure the arc of history leads ever upward, if we can just get the strategies right.

The Realists are not buying it, not for a minute. They recognize the cyclic nature of history and of human existence. They know it is not about the “things” but about the humans who deploy them. They do not believe in evolution but rather in the everlasting tug of war – and are beginning to pull hard on their end of the rope to avoid the gravitational pull they are feeling toward imminent disaster. They do believe in good and evil – and, by extension, in a power greater than ourselves whether we call it God or Wheaties. They can never accept more government as a deity which will save them, as it will inevitably manifest all the same flaws as any group of human beings since it is created by and composed of them.

Do I believe in evolution? I believe in the evolution of consciousness in an individual or soul. I do not believe in the evolution of a collective, whether it is humanity or any other species. Do we learn things across generations that are helpful once transmitted? Of course. However, that is not evolution. Evolution is a change of state to a higher, more complex, more conscious order of being. It is a function of being, not of doing or even learning. If evolution were possible, we would pass down our accumulated wisdom in our genes to our offspring. They would begin where we leave off. Every parent who has raised a child knows this is a laughable notion. Obama was right about that. Humans as a whole have been consistently the same throughout recorded history. But we each as an individual soul, starting from scratch, have the opportunity to evolve to higher states of consciousness. Only in that regard do I accept that evolution is real. It is an individual thing.

So then how do we create or establish world peace? There is no such thing. There is only the dynamic balance that establishes Constancy as we move between the poles of War and Peace, never embracing either one for too long as being stuck in either one would lead to the end of all life. In that Constancy, we find the Flow of Life itself, and are free to flow with it and awaken to the life, the liberty and the happiness – the blessings, the grace - that are ever-present within it.

"Cease, Man, to mourn, to weep, to wail; enjoy the shining hour of sun;

We dance along Death's icy brink, but is the dance less full of fun?"

-Sir Richard Burton, "The Kasidah"