The first posts formed a miniseries about wisdom. This introduces a new miniseries on the concept of democracy. We begin with a political spectrum based on Enlightenment conceptions of the social contract. I covered these in my election year journal, Pandering and Punditry, Entries #9-10.

The ruling principle of authoritarian government can be summarized as “might makes right.”  Representative government seeks the “consent of the governed.”  Participatory government engages “the will of the people.”  These ruling principles correspond to how much faith we have in humanity.

Placing these approaches along a spectrum, “might makes right” goes on the right.  The farthest extreme of this would be one supreme ruler of the world.  If you truly aligned with a supreme ruler this would be a highly efficient and favorable form of government.  Yet in a large and diverse population only a minority ever aligns precisely with one leader without groupthink.  Plus those favoring the current supreme ruler might be trampled by the next.

”The will of the people” belongs on the left of the spectrum.  In the farthest extreme people would vote directly on every issue.  This calls for the greatest exercise of autonomy and, by definition, the informed backing of the majority on every issue.  This has worked well for smaller populations, but deciding every issue this way creates insurmountable inefficiencies and chaos for large mass societies.

”Consent of the governed” thus represents a compromise between these two extremes.  Voting for representatives mitigates “might makes right” oppression.  Having them decide issues on our behalf mitigates “the will of the people” chaos.  Laws further constrain the political system from going too far left or right on the spectrum.  Conservative representatives favor laws that “conserve” order and traditions, pulling government towards the right.  Liberal representatives favor laws that “liberate” people from possible oppression, pulling government towards the left.

Imagine this political spectrum as the rope in a tug of war.  Over time the pulling shifts where the spectrum lies.  A balanced political system shifts back and forth around an equilibrium, like the center line in a tug of war.  With natural systems we call this homeostasis.  An unbalanced system tugs mainly in one direction over time, steadily away from an equilibrium. This either creates a different system with a new equilibrium or collapses from the continuing imbalance.

According to several value systems, including my own, a superior social contract delivers superior brain health and humanitarian results. The United States has inferior results compared to other advanced countries. This indicates an unbalanced system that has been corrupted, similar to playing tug of war on a slanted field. For decades our political system features a metaphorical slant that favors “might makes right.”  Restoring an equilibrium requires identifying what causes the slant.