The first posts formed a miniseries about wisdom. This introduces a new miniseries about the political continuum 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 continuum, “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 continuum.  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 continuum.  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 continuum as the rope in a tug of war.  Over time the pulling shifts where the continuum 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.

An unbalanced system might be due to superior merit.  In the case of tug of war, superior strength creates superior merit.  With the political continuum, a superior social contract between agents and citizens of the state creates superior merit.  According to several value systems, including my own, a superior social contract delivers superior brain health and humanitarian results.

An unbalanced system may be due to a rigged system rather than superior merit.  Imagine a tug of war contest on a slanted field.  Even with superior strength the uphill team may not be able to win, or even maintain an equilibrium.  Our political system features a metaphorical slant. For decades our belief in humanity has waned as we slide towards “might makes right.”  Restoring an equilibrium requires identifying what makes the field slanted.