Contemporary Politics and Newton's Three Laws of Motion

Recent polling data on the American population’s ideological identification has brought to mind Newton’s Laws of Motion – seriously. :)



The Polling Data

Gallup has just come out with a poll with this bottom line on American self-identification: 40% conservative, 36% moderate, 21% liberal. This is the link to a full article.

A December 2009 Battleground poll shows a 63% to 33% advantage for conservatives over liberals. This is the link to a full article.

The data affirms both my long held assumptions and my reading of current political trends.

First of all, the American nation has historically been all about the individual pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. Hell, the nation was founded with these specific words in the Declaration of Independence. This means the American people are usually paying attention to anything but politics and government. Conservatism is a philosophy that respects precedent and the proven qualities of ideas that have endured in real world practice. In other words, conservatives honestly value stuff people already know. Don’t get me wrong, we like new stuff too. It’s just that we require new stuff to show value before we adopt it – and definitely before we try to get other people to adopt it. Russell Kirk said it perfectly when he described conservatism as “the negation of ideology.” Plainly understood this way, it should be no surprise most Americans are in fact conservative, whether they realize it or not. It’s the realization part that is at the heart of the matter.

For my entire lifetime, there has been a long march (Mao pun intentional) of left wing ideologues (liberals, progressives, and socialists) through the institutions of government, academia, and media. As a result, the great majority of Americans alive today have mostly been governed, educated (sometimes indoctrinated), and had their news edited by people of an entirely different ideological stripe. Think of these elites as the regulatory/campus/newsroom complex. The ideology of the regulatory/campus/newsroom complex says a small percentage of intellectual elites should make all of the decisions for everyone else. Their ideology is also prone to falling for the latest ‘revolutionary theory’ springing from any fellow ideologue. The Democrats are their standard bearers in contemporary American politics. In some ways, we should feel sorry for the poor souls – whipsawed back and forth by constantly falling for, then being let down by, stuff that sounds good at first but then fails to deliver. (Watching their meltdown over Global Warming will be a source of amusement for some time going forward.) What makes me feel not at all sorry for them is they also believe they must tar and smear their opponents, to achieve the ascendancy of their ideas.

For example, one such sustained attack has been the ugly caricature of social conservatives as ignorant, bible-thumping rednecks. For the life of me, I can’t figure out what these so-called elites are afraid of. It seems to me social conservatives have organized their lives around preserving the most effective institution man has devised for continuously maintaining civil order – the family. As a conservative libertarian my approach is more like trying to stay between lines of an “all things in moderation” framework. So, the social conservatives have stricter rules serving as their guideposts? Why should I care, so long as neither one of us infringes on the other’s inalienable right to the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness?

All of this now brings me to three proven and demonstrable laws of science. Yes, the poke at Global Warming is intentional.



Newton’s Three Laws

The exceptional Internet reference site Wikipedia defines the laws of motion as so:

• First Law: "An object in motion will stay in motion and an object at rest will stay at rest unless acted upon by an external force" [inertia] or "A body persists in a state of uniform motion or of rest unless acted upon by an external force." [momentum]

• Second Law: "Force equals mass times acceleration" or "F = ma."

• Third Law: "To every action there is an equal and opposite reaction."

Applying this framework to today’s national political scene identifies the following analogs. 2009 was all about inertia and momentum. The first ten months of 2010 will be about acceleration. Election Day in November 2010 will illustrate the second law. The third law will set the stage for politics in 2011 and 2012.

With respect to politics, the vast majority of Americans would prefer to remain a body at rest. They would like to pursue their own lives, simply trusting that the stewards to which they have handed the keys to city hall are responsibly protecting their rights. Left wing ideologues, by far the minority of the general population, are a body in constant motion politically. They believe in the ability of government to run other peoples’ lives. They are in fact attracted to the idea of running the government, in order to get the chance to run other peoples’ lives. While in government, they can’t help themselves from acting as busybodies in constant search for new ways to run other peoples’ lives. The prospect for a collision between these two bodies has been building for decades; at least since left wing ideology began take the high ground on campuses in the 1960’s. This prospect came to a head in 2009. Both major political parties have played a part in overcoming the inertia of the American electorate – the Democrats as standard bearers of the left, the Republicans as enablers for Democrats and failed stewards for the people.

The Republican led congress of 2000-2006 disappointingly governed as a Democrat-lite caucus. By the way, am I the only person in America who blames Dennis Hastert and not George Bush for this? Bush obviously decided to concentrate his energies on homeland security and the war on terror, and basically delegated domestic party politics to congress. Hastert & company chose to concentrate on taking pork home to secure re-election. They hadn’t come yet to understand the naturally conservative American people were already in motion, in reaction to a long building resentment over failed stewardship by professional politicians. That generation of Republicans earned well-deserved electoral defeats in 2006 and 2008.

The Democrats completely misread the elections of 2006 and 2008 as endorsements of their philosophy. They shallowly figured the American people had rejected the Republican “brand,” therefore they must want the Democratic “brand.” The presidential campaign they ran in 2008 was brilliant politics. They identified a candidate with the (almost) perfect attributes (polished black woman would have been a little better). They masterfully manipulated an American electorate that was very much in motion, but still sorting out why. To the naturally conservative majority they were purposefully vague about their program. It was all about agreeing on the buzz word “change” – skipping the part about defining the direction of change. Thus the Democratic Party and their natural constituency in the regulatory/campus/newsroom complex completed their long march into governmental power. Or so they must have thought. What else could explain how quickly they have imploded simply by overreaching their priorities in governing?

A tremendous collision between the American conservative majority and the regulatory/campus/newsroom complex is guaranteed for November 2010. The only variable needing further definition is the acceleration variable. The following factors will contribute to its final value.

Can the established GOP effectively capture the 2010 spirit of the American body politic? If they do, the force felt in November will be simply historic. For this to occur, the GOP must field candidates who can demonstrate fidelity to conservative principles first and foremost. New York 23 was a missed opportunity for the GOP’s professional politicians. The entire point of this posting is illustrated by Doug Hoffmann coming as close as he did on short notice and on a financial shoe-string. Now it appears there is a politician named Scott Brown who actually has a chance to win a US Senate seat in the progressive stronghold of Massachusetts (of all places), running under the combined endorsements of the GOP and TEA parties. This is the link to follow if you wish to lend support - http://www.brownforussenate.com/. I am also temporarily adding it to the top of my list of linked sites.

How foolishly and nakedly left-ward will the Democrats continue to govern? This question is less important than the previous one. The Democrat party has already forfeited any votes from anyone thinking in patriotic terms. They can only slightly diminish the force by attempting some sort of “pivot” to a more conservative governing stance. My prediction, however, is they cannot and will not abandon the pursuit of their ideological goals. That’s what ideologues do. Plus, they are so deliciously hilarious to watch in office. Irony – comic sibling to hypocrisy – simply radiates out from them like carbon dioxide and methane from a flatulent cow. The Reid ruckus in this morning’s news illustrates my point. In a rational, settled, world it would hardly even be news. At this highly volatile point in history, it gives us a drain to circle around and figure things out.

How will external events unfold and affect the discussion? Thank God the crotch-bomber misfired. It served to elevate the discussion without further loss of American life.

I expect the force of the conservative American majority will be felt by the regulatory/campus/newsroom complex in November at a historic magnitude. We will then amuse ourselves by watching the reaction in equal force by the regulatory/campus/newsroom complex, which will set the stage for 2011-2012 politics.

Strap in, folks, it’s going to be a bumpy ride for awhile. But, at least the news will be anything but boring. That’s one consolation.