50 PURPLE STATES

50 purple states?

Is this what we should desire?

If we are to be one nation undivided, then yes, that is what we should desire.

Presently, we are a nation divided by red and blue states and there are those who believe that the only way to become one nation is for all the states to become blue or red. But that could not be accomplished by any civilized means. And certainly not without violating or summarily trashing the Constitution. The Antifa cancel-culture of the left would like nothing more than the utter destruction of the American Republic and all that it stands for. And, in certain blue states, they have been allowed to pursue that end with unbridled unrestrained vengeance. But if the anarchists believe that they have some sacred inviolate ongoing covenant with the powers that be on left they are, I’m sure, sadly mistaken. For if the left ever does come to uncontested power those useful idiots, no longer of use, will be, at the very least, disowned.

There may be some on the right who would like to establish an all red-state America but such a radical agenda is not evident throughout the Republican Party as it is on the left. The right lacks the unified overzealousness of the left. There is also the so-called RINO (Republican In Name Only) contingent who seek to forge a workable alliance with their counterparts on the left, still believing, after so many broken promises, that they can be trusted to live up to their end of a bargain.

The absence of a unified effort on the part of the right to assert themselves all but ensures the eventual total takeover of the left. Such a takeover, however, would not necessarily be all that advantageous to the coherence of the liberal movement. Once their goal is achieved there would no longer be an overall unifying force, i.e., their all consuming hatred of Trump, to hold them together. Separate factions and individuals would most likely come to the fore, viciously compete for positions of power and seek to undermine one another in their rush to dominate.

But, what about — We the People? What if we could get out from under the constant bludgeoning of political and media apparatchiks? What if we could escape from the political prisons we have been forced into by ideological dictators? Would we not want 50 purple states where reasonable political discourse could be the order of the day, along with unbiased journalism? Seems an impossible dream in the current climate.

But let’s imagine that we have liberated ourselves from our abject political straitjackets and have become clear sighted and able to freely choose what is our own best interest. We the People would be instructing our representatives on how they should be conducting themselves and not the other way around.

In order to do that we must be able to see the big picture.

Seeing the big picture… How do we go about doing that? We must, of course, consult real world knowledge as given to us by science.

Recently the left has been fond of throwing science in our faces. But politicians, left and right, cherry pick science as they do the Bible to advance their specific agendas.

So, what is the real world knowledge that can be of service in turning us purple?

First of all, science has something to say about the manner in which we choose our ideological preferences. We believe that we choose them based on their comparative merits. That is, which one we see as superior to the other. But, actually one’s preference is chosen for one and then one supplies all the pretty reasons for one’s choice.

Yes, that’s right. Science tells us that we are genetically predisposed in our choice of ideology.

It’s something like handedness. There are the right handed, the left handed and the ambidextrous. So, there are those on the right side of the aisle, those on the left and those who are more independent minded.

Now, before we get into the science involved here we can see how this proposition could explain certain aspects of our political perspectives.

It could, for example, explain how anyone could still embrace communism after it has proven to be incapable of producing anything close to the perfect society it has promised to deliver. And yet there are those who still embrace it. One is perplexed by their blatant disregard of communism’s dreadful performance in all of its manifestations throughout its history.

The Russians rejected it. The Chinese communists found it to be sorely lacking as an exclusive blueprint for a workable social system. And presently, communist Venezuela is an atrocious failure.

And yet there are those who still sing communism’s praises.

I can see no other explanation for this other than a genetic predisposition. They have no choice. Moths attracted to a flame.

A paper on the subject of ideological choice and genetic influence can be found at https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1030&context=poliscifacpub

This is knowledge of ourselves. Knowledge of ourselves that we don’t want to know.

But just imagine if genetic influence on party affiliations was totally accepted.

Zealous party members would not have to try and convince anyone else of their ostensibly noble reasons for their party affiliations. They could not claim that they are members of a particular party because of its merits nor try to persuade others of their party’s superiority. It would relieve them and everyone else from a lot of unwarranted palaver because it would be like trying to persuade others that one chose to have blue eyes because they are superior to brown eyes and green eyes and any other color eyes. Blue eyes see things more clearly one might claim as one might claim that the vision of one particular ideological perspective is the only way to see things. Both, of course, are insupportable.

So, any claim to the superiority of a particular party could not hold water. Everyone would know that the only reason one claims that is because one has no choice.

Both parties would be seen as an unavoidable consequence of human nature and, generally speaking, nature itself. After all human nature is part and parcel of nature the nature of things.

If the roots of our party affiliations were universally, or at least generally accepted to be a matter of genetics, it would behoove those on either side of the aisle to strictly focus on what they might have to offer with respect to the circumstances and needs of the day. Instead of investing so much time and effort on foolish hostilities.

With that in mind, one thing that must be sorted out in a social body is identifying that which is harmful to it and that which is beneficial. And that must be done with respect to conservative and liberal perspectives.

Science tells us that such operations are carried out within our bodies, as well, in much the same fashion.

Our immune systems must identify what is harmful and what is beneficial to our bodies and act accordingly, with respect to liberal and conservative margins.

The T-cells of the immune system patrol through the bloodstream on the lookout for invading organisms. They must be able to distinguish between organisms which do and do not belong to the body they are protecting. Once an invading organism is identified a signal is sent to our B-cells to produce the appropriate antibodies with which to destroy the threatening microbes. The T-cells also call off the attack once they recognize the threat is eliminated.

Again, the activities of T-cells are carried out within liberal and conservative margins. For instance, they can be too liberal in identifying what belongs to one’s body and allow for any number of illnesses to take hold of one. Or, as in autoimmune diseases, they can be too conservative in their assessment in what does not belong and identify some bodily tissue for destruction that is vital to one’s health.

Similar judgments must be made by the body politic concerning what is and is not harmful to a social organism. A Stalin, McCarthy or Pol Pot are examples of overly conservative assessors of what is and is not a threat to society. They, and others like them, see all those who deviate from their view of society as harmful and seek to destroy all those who do not conform to it. On the other hand, too liberal an outlook allows for harmful deviations to become acceptable. In order to be accurate, our assessment of what is and is not a threat to our social organisms must be contained within the bounds of conservative and liberal margins. That is a law of nature.

A society, a social organism, must have confidence in its ability to accurately identify and effectively rid itself of any and all threats to its well-being. It must, in effect, deploy a well informed, judgmentally sound immune system as is found within a healthy body.

A dictionary definition of liberal is; not bound by orthodox tenets or established forms, more permissive, a letting go, allowing for deviation from the norm

Conservative is defined as; strict adherence to established forms, low tolerance for change, defending the status quo

With these definitions in mind one can readily see that it is not healthful for either liberalism or conservatism to operate without benefit of a rational discourse between them.

When it is — “We liberals alone represent the only perspective that matters. Therefore, liberalism must prevail exclusively and absolutely.” Or — “We conservatives alone represent the only perspective that matters. Therefore, conservatism must prevail exclusively and absolutely.” Then we get the horrific excesses that we have seen in dictatorships throughout history and recently in the USA where lawlessness has been condoned by leftists who feel justified in using any means necessary to achieve their self-serving goals. Like, the violent destructive protests we seem to have become accustomed to.

Now, there are other anatomical checks and balances with respect to conservative and liberal aspects that have been discovered by scientific investigation and can be applicable to our social systems.

For example, DNA and the proteins they code for are highly conservative in structure and performance while the resultant biosphere is highly liberal in its resplendent variety. Also, the overall integrity of the DNA process is maintained between liberal and conservative elements, as in molecular agents that favor mutation — liberal. And those that favor invariance — conservative. A workable balance between the two elements must be maintained in order for life to endure and evolve.

If the agents in favor of invariance had total control life could not have evolved passed the cellular colony stage. If the liberal elements, the agents for mutation, had held sway, every cell reproduced would have been so radically different from the previous one that no agreeable constitution could have been arrived at in order to produce a coherent life form beyond those of individual cells.

The same holds true for social organisms. If our primitive ancestors were absolutely conservative in their ways, not allowing for any changes whatsoever in the way things were done, we could not have evolved out of the Hunter/Gatherer stage. Or, if tribes were absolutely liberal and allowed every one of their members to continually change things according to whatever whimsy they concocted then cohesive units could not have been formed and, again, societal evolution would not have been possible.

So, we have scientific knowledge of ourselves and the nature of things which can be instructive with respect to our notions and prejudices concerning our sociopolitical perspectives. This is valuable knowledge that could be instrumental in resolving our dangerous divisiveness. And it’s difficult to understand why there aren’t any scientists out there promoting more knowledgeable ways of managing our political differences and throwing a wet blanket over a party whose fiery passions are raging out of control.

The left likes to claim that it is the party of science but the science it is touting merely supports its self-serving narrative. Is that the criteria by which science should be judged? By political mandate? Are we about to embark on a journey whereby the scientific method is decided by a political party? Are we to have Lysenko type scientists whereby science will be conducted according to ideological perspectives?

Climate science, for example, with its absurd unscientific prediction made in 2004 that sea levels would rise 20 feet by 2016 qualifies it as nothing more than junk science along with its ever echoing 12 years till doomsday scenario. With a record like that how is it possible for anyone to give it any credence whatsoever. And yet it is still endorsed by scientists and leftists.

We find that scientists today are, generally, on the left side of the aisle. More so than a genetic disposition would predict. So I think we have to take into account that this might be a matter of going along to get along on the part of our scientists.

The institutions that scientists depend on for their grants and employment are in large part aligned with the left. And it is not out of the question to suppose that one might tend to conform to what one senses to be a required perspective of one’s employer.

Scientific minded people, if they are free to do so, will look at the world objectively. So, why not the political world? What reason could there be for a scientist to exclude that or any other part of the world from objective inquiry except for some outside influence? Marching in lockstep with the powers-that-be without proper reflection is not what we expect from those rigorously trained to observe things rationally.

One more thing about deriving guidance from scientific knowledge with respect to our social systems.

Electronic media is a social body’s nervous system and like an anatomical nervous system it must convey accurate information throughout the body at all times for it to function properly. As it is now our nation’s nervous system is in disarray as it is mostly presided over by information controlling tyrants seeking to cement their power by aligning themselves with the globalist elites and orchestrating news and information to fashion public opinion in conformance with their nefarious designs.