Organic Counterweights
From Zanecorpwiki
Pretty much any "system", in the most general sense, relies on some kind of counterweight. Some kind of countervailing force. Without countervailing forces, you can't change anything. You can't change course, you can't regulate, you can't dampen, you can't enhance. You can neither speed up nor slow down.
To the extent that our political angst is rooted in genuine fears regarding policy, most fears are based on some kind of meltdown. Take for example Alex Jones. Mr. Jones represents a growing train of thought that is explicitly driven by the idea that multiple systemic failures on an apocalyptic scale are not only possible, but in fact almost certain. I'm not saying anything here about whether he's right or wrong, but it's undeniable that Jone's narrative fits comfortably into the "end of days" genre.
And although Mr. Jones sincerely resists the "left"/"right" label, I think we could all agree that apocalyptic language is found more in "the rights" political narrative than it is on "the left". I agree with Mr. Jones on this point: the "left/right" divide in American politics is more theater than substance. Perhaps the only truly useful use of the left/right distinction is when speaking about the narrative. As if politics has become a thing entirely divorced from policy. Indeed, our vote does make a difference, but the policy preferences which we would like to communicate are only received through a lens of political narrative that distorts and muddles the single. "Why the fuck am I out of work while the jokers that got us into this mess receive the biggest bonuses in history because they fucked me over?" turns into the rights oddly aggressive yet cowardly: "Let's slash government spending in a wild hail Mary that giving over even more money and control to the rich will finally satiate them and they'll start giving back; i.e., Trickle Down Economics 2.0" vs. the left's heroin like soothing: "If we never say no to anything, then bad things just won't happen." The one side points to the myth of Reagan's economic success in the 80's, while the other side points to the myth of Roosevelt's success in the 40's. But they're both concerned with repeating the themes, they never stopped to consider whether the plot actually makes any sense.
Err... I've got to come back to this as now I'm distracted by extended metaphor. Originally, I wanted to get to the idea that while it is good to fear runaway forces, there's lots of evidence to suggest that things are unlikely to go completely off the rails. Like, in the past, whenever something terrible happened, something appeared to stop it. You can kind of say the same thing the other way round too. Where we see great things happening, we often see dampening forces rise.
But even that can be good. Anything unchecked can blow up. Whether it was initially good or bad doesn't change the damage done by the explosion.
This kind of thinking is not well understood in Western thought, and I'll be a bit bold and say my limited studies have convinced me these ideas are far more prevalent in Eastern narratives.
Oh, and the thing that got it all started: gerrymandering districts results in more ideological homogeneous districts means that politicians must play ever more closely to the narrative and give less and less thought to policy.
