Doug Kerr
Well-known member
Often in science and mathematics we find that some scale we think of as "linear" actually turns out to be "cyclic", in one sense or another.
We find it in basic optical theory: if we move the sensor in a camera closer to the lens, the distance at which the object must be to be in focus moves further out in front, until essentially it is at "infinity". But if we move the lens just a teeny bit forward, the object point is now suddenly at "an infinite distance behind the camera". I'll leave this introductory metaphor without explaining what real significance that has, since talking about lenses is not really my point here.
We often use a scale of "to the right" and "to the left" (a metaphor borrowed from the layout of the Houses of Parliament) to describe many things, often confusing one with the another. And often a change in one property of, say, our government, "to the right" seems coupled with a change in another property "to the right". In my cynical times, I attribute this coupling to people who don't really have any thoughts about anything and only remember that their position is "to the right".
One might expect that I could have as well explained the concept by saying "to the left", except that it doesn't seem so often to work that way in that direction.
But again, I digress.
One "axis" of measurement is the degree to which a government is authoritarian (for which we can well read "dictatorial"). In the abstract, we generally think of a leaning "to the right" along that axis as being "more authoritarian". In fact, the pejorative adjective "fascist" is generally used with refernce to some real or hypothetical "far right" and "extremely authoritarian" government.
Now we move to the left, which in the "near field" seems to suggest not only governance that is more attuned to the welfare of all strata of society but to a "less authoritarian" government outlook. But there are paradoxes. The most salient is that the classical "liberal" (read, "left") orientation is for more government activity (which, of course doesn't necessarily mean a "more authoritarian" government, but could).
We find the paradox enlarged as we move even farther "to the left", where we arrive at the historical model of the Russian Revolution, and its bastard child, the Communist empire. There, we find (as, for example, under Stalin) perhaps the most authoritarian (in fact, dictatorial) regime of its size in modern times.
So the scale joins at its far ends - "all the way right" turns out to be in many ways the same as "all the way left" - just like the distance to the object point in a lens, or along the time line to the International Date Line..
Of course my real point in this is that so many people place such a premium on "following their direction to the limit". We see this in the present presidential campaign, in which the Republican candidates seem not to be trying to attract a majority of the American voters but rather to prepare to do well in an interview with the party wonks, in which they will be scored based on how close they are to the wonks' ideal of "to the right of Louis XIV". It was the best way to get nominated - and I hope not the best way to get elected.
So to the mindless "conservative" steering hard to the right, I issue this warning (I send it to them in their cars, by jamming an AM broadcast channel): "Keep at it. In a week or so, you'll be all the way to the left."
We find it in basic optical theory: if we move the sensor in a camera closer to the lens, the distance at which the object must be to be in focus moves further out in front, until essentially it is at "infinity". But if we move the lens just a teeny bit forward, the object point is now suddenly at "an infinite distance behind the camera". I'll leave this introductory metaphor without explaining what real significance that has, since talking about lenses is not really my point here.
We often use a scale of "to the right" and "to the left" (a metaphor borrowed from the layout of the Houses of Parliament) to describe many things, often confusing one with the another. And often a change in one property of, say, our government, "to the right" seems coupled with a change in another property "to the right". In my cynical times, I attribute this coupling to people who don't really have any thoughts about anything and only remember that their position is "to the right".
One might expect that I could have as well explained the concept by saying "to the left", except that it doesn't seem so often to work that way in that direction.
But again, I digress.
One "axis" of measurement is the degree to which a government is authoritarian (for which we can well read "dictatorial"). In the abstract, we generally think of a leaning "to the right" along that axis as being "more authoritarian". In fact, the pejorative adjective "fascist" is generally used with refernce to some real or hypothetical "far right" and "extremely authoritarian" government.
Now we move to the left, which in the "near field" seems to suggest not only governance that is more attuned to the welfare of all strata of society but to a "less authoritarian" government outlook. But there are paradoxes. The most salient is that the classical "liberal" (read, "left") orientation is for more government activity (which, of course doesn't necessarily mean a "more authoritarian" government, but could).
We find the paradox enlarged as we move even farther "to the left", where we arrive at the historical model of the Russian Revolution, and its bastard child, the Communist empire. There, we find (as, for example, under Stalin) perhaps the most authoritarian (in fact, dictatorial) regime of its size in modern times.
So the scale joins at its far ends - "all the way right" turns out to be in many ways the same as "all the way left" - just like the distance to the object point in a lens, or along the time line to the International Date Line..
Of course my real point in this is that so many people place such a premium on "following their direction to the limit". We see this in the present presidential campaign, in which the Republican candidates seem not to be trying to attract a majority of the American voters but rather to prepare to do well in an interview with the party wonks, in which they will be scored based on how close they are to the wonks' ideal of "to the right of Louis XIV". It was the best way to get nominated - and I hope not the best way to get elected.
So to the mindless "conservative" steering hard to the right, I issue this warning (I send it to them in their cars, by jamming an AM broadcast channel): "Keep at it. In a week or so, you'll be all the way to the left."