Sep 9, 2020
Just heard 45 use that term in justifying the appointment of judges that he thinks are the proper people for the job. They are all right-thinking ideologues. Funny thing is, 45 doesn’t choose them, he forwards — often without any personal knowledge — names that satisfy some portion of his remaining intelligentsia. Persons of this ilk are the right. They typically believe in patriarchal thinking (father is always correct), conservation of what is or benefits them personally to a flaw, and a tendency to reject anything that could taint or challenge their control, even others of their own perspective. They are rigid thinkers who have been developed, since their infancy, as conservatives. They do not have the innate capacity to change. Change is antithetical to their conservatism.
Politically, the left is just as ardent in their beliefs but has a tendency to be more open-minded and often loose continuity and, thereby, control because they are many issue oriented. They require coalitions of issue-oriented individuals to even be a party. They are many things, but — I contend — are more akin to what an American should be and meant to be. They rise, fall, fail, get up, adapt, inspire, consider, evaluate, aspire, and usually care about more things instead of one. (Of course, my definition will clearly trigger the bias alarm, a chink in the chain mail, in those who see it differently. That’s OK. I could be wrong. Might you be wrong? Consider this an issue we can passionately discuss at a later time.) Change is a part of their existence.
The adjective “radical” is a scare word in this day and age. It is also a relative word. It has no absolute value. It can be whatever one chooses to brand with it. To someone who ardently professes “Yes,”, “No” is radical.
In politics there is a tendency to reduce everything to left or right, good or bad, tax or no tax, yours or mine. Dependent on the number of issues involved, such a rendering is, at best, unfortunate. If there are a few issues, examples: One-dimension — Choice; Two-dimensions — Choice and Taxes, renderings are really unfortunate. Three or more issues are grotesquely unfortunate. Example: Ten-dimensions — Choice, Taxes, Party, Character, Health Care, Immigration, Honesty, Public Education, Military, Social Security, Justice. These are randomly selected issues but you get the point. The reality is that ten issues or dimensions doesn’t even begin to address our society and the world we live in. To render the several hundreds if not thousands of issues of interest to the electorate in one left-right representation is, candidly, insane. But politicians do it all the time and you, we, allow them to get away with it. Why? Are we, as a people, really that simple-minded? If so, we probably deserve what we get.
If you a a monolithic thinker, i.e., one-issue/dimension, you are served but not well because, whether you acknowledge them or not, the other issues’ effects contribute to the whole. That you focus on one or two means that the other 95% of issues are ruling your life whether you acknowledge them or not. Ignorance is not bliss, it’s chaos.
For the sake of discussion and an attempt to put a value on “radical,’ I choose to use a standard distribution curve. The curve represents that distribution of almost anything measured that can be rendered in a sort of one-dimensional fashion, a one-dimensional continua left — right or good — bad, yours or mine. The curve is divided into zones called standard deviations. There are three and a bit more right and three and a bit more left. The average of all things included is the average or, in mathematical jargon, the mean and divides the left and right portions of the curve. The number of anything within the first right or left portions or deviations constitutes about 34% of the total. If you include all in the first right and left zones, that’s 68% plus of the total of all things included. If you add the second left and right deviations, over 27% more of the total is added. Two standard deviations right and left account for little over 95% of the total of all things. The two third deviation zones add another 4% plus for a total of 99.8% of the total of all things. There are small numbers of things remaining beyond the third deviation lines. These are typically considered outliers.
(see diagram below)
It is my contention that this is a reasonable mechanism to examine American politics and several million other human endeavors.
But I digress…
While simplistic, let us consider first deviation zones, right or left. The moderates with leanings, make-up the middle 68%. Let’s call them the One-Ders. There are one or two issues that they acknowledge that pull them right or left but, for the most part, they either don’t have an opinion or it really doesn’t matter to them. They’re simply trying to survive.
The residents of the second deviation, that 27% further out or Two-Ders, are the ideologues. Some esoteric issue or interpretations of issues drive their thinking. They are more militant than the One-Ders, are the vocal influencers and, usually, the wielders of power. Two-Ders are many of today’s politicians. Most of the visible political conflicts are sponsored or participated in by Two-Ders, left and right, and do so over the top of the One-Ders who either don’t see or don’t care. Two-Ders would probably use any technique to make more persons in their own images.
Those in the two third deviation zones, the 4% that are Three-Ders–I hope, are the radicals. These are individuals that are usually ardent, monolithic thinkers and are normally invisible, that is invisible unless given oxygen and voice. Communist thinking individuals on the left and fascists on the right are probably representative groups. They are cult-ish. They are unrelenting. They don’t get out of their own heads long enough to consider anything but the rigidly stated philosophies to which they subscribe. These are usually dangerous to all who do not see things their way. Of late, the communists are invisible as they have been for decades. The neo-nazis, white supremacists, and other persons of the same ilk have been summoned from their invisibility by the shifting of political empowerment. Oddly, most of these would have been eliminated by American survivors of World War II as these were the enemy.
The outliers are there on both sides. These are the thinkers. Engels, Marx and Rand were amongst these. Einstein and Tesla were some of these in science. Dr J. Robin Warren certainly was (H. pylori). They were people outside the box, outliers. They did cause change, pro or con, but from the cheap seats.
To the point, did the left or right become more radical thus shifting the other extremes relative position and descriptive adjective? Did the average change? Or did the invisibles emerge from their dark places on the right side thus causing the almost non-existent far left give way to some portion of the left Two-Ders so as to appear that the radical left had come out of hiding thus making it appear that the fault is the Radical Left?
That probably sounds esoteric and convoluted. Simplified: on the curve, did the left or the right become the visible radicals thus shifting the appearance of radical to the less threatening left?
As always, those of you who understood this to begin with, it was not for you. It was for my following that can’t see it. I will keep chipping away because it is the souls of those who do not see that. I am trying to give a chance to save their souls. Many are family.
It is Fifty-five days to a determination of our national soul. What will it be? Hate or love? Fear or hope? Right or left? Lying is truth or truth is truth? It is up to you to determine. I’ve made my choice. When I meet my Maker and if my perspective is judged as wrong, I will accept my fate. But I don’t think that will happen for this reason. Can you say the same thing?
b.
