Out of two, one?

[Captain Picard's Hair]

This is a more philosophical issue, but relates directly to political debates. I tend to be tired by the bitterly divided debates here in America, but I wonder what drives them. There has been some research done on the basic differences between "liberals" and "conservatives." Let me refer you to a Ted talk by psychologist Jonathan Haidt.

It strikes me that there's a deeper meaning to be found in that both sets of opposing views tend to emerge in human groups: I infer that nature prefers this arrangement (though most will fall somewhere in the middle a vocal minority take extreme views). Whether by the will of God or the process of evolution, this disagreement comes about naturally. Logically, one must conclude that no less than nature tells us that both views have their place. Haidt compares it to yin and yang near the end of the talk, where each half depends on the other; specifically each half of this moral divide acts as a foil to the other. The excesses of liberalism gone too far (as the talk describes in a word, chaos) are as damaging as those of conservatism gone too far (a rigid order in which minorities and the poor are marginalized). Nature seeks the proper balance between the extremes, so neither side must go unchecked but both must have their say.

I'd also add that nature thrives on diversity, in this case of ideas. Strength of diversity is obvious in genetics (a certain threshold of genetic diversity is needed to perpetuate any species), where diversity in genes affecting resistance to disease and adaptation to different conditions allows the species to adapt to the changing conditions of nature. In people, diversity of ideas sparks more creativity, even at the risk of heated arguments and division. In their times, Isaac Newton, Galileo Galilei and Albert Einstein were some of the most radical thinkers on the planet, as much as Karl Marx might be considered a radical thinker.

Though I stand decidedly on one side of the aisle myself, I thought it was enlightening to take a step back. If more people did this maybe (just maybe) we'd be able to talk past each other less and see the middle ground more. There's a tendency now for each side to get along in their little bubbles, but they lose sight of the very notion that the "other side" has valid points that must be addressed.

[Mikey]

The issue seems to be one of perspective. While both components of the yin and yang may require each other - and indeed, the fact that either extreme left unchecked will come full circle to produce a totalitarianism by one name or another seems to bear this out - it's certainly not so easy to see the gestalt from within either the yin or the yang. In fact, taking that big gestalt in mind when assessing one's own political philosophy could very well obviate the usefulness of that yin-yang tension.