Business is politics is war. & vice versa.

Over at the hotbed of heathenistic thinking, Dailykos, I post a diary from time to time. Responding in real-time helps keep me flexy in the face of the day job and what I truly believe. And, truth be told, me and my Liberal ideas and worldview do make a shitload of money for my "Conservative" business clients. In many ways, we're arguing semantics of fundamental human principles. An example....

In a great diary earlier this evening, ChicagoDyke raised some great points, but for me, a few bear more than just a comment...

The Left has never failed to live up to its reputation when it comes to lack of a clear message and strength-though-unity. Personally, I don't think this is a bad thing. Diversity is our strength, just as homogeneity is the strength of the right.

On your idea of the left's astigmatism: Exactly. But claiming "diversity" as a strength, particularly in the context of 2005's political climate, is a misnomer. Diversity, whether biological or social is a stabilizer, allowing in variable inputs, averaging out a continuum, ecosystem or genepool. Diversity is stability and resilience for the long term. But politics is a competitive sport with finite goals: winning within time limited measurements called elections. And, in a media age, the choices are often equated between Divergent and Convergent mindsets. Neither is a panacea...

But, one is more easy to digest in a time-pressed world, awash in factesque claims. Politics favors convergence--a willingness to narrow down, prioritize, and pull the trigger--to run with the best you've got and leave the kitchen sink at home. But, convergence alone, the paring down to the bone for efficiency's sake leaves you lost in the winner's circle. If winning alone is your goal, alone you often are, wondering "What's next?" and why everyone doesn't share in your victory. The answer is simple: You ran for yourself, for your own reasons. You left the "drags" on your "efficency" behind. And now, you expect to lead the drags? And they to follow? If Convergence gets the brass ring, it also dooms you to a limited set of options. That ring is chained to a constricted ideology that eliminates avenues of thought and opportunity, not out of prinicple, nor performance, but out of fear: fear of losing, fear of damaging your streak. Fear of being out of control, fear of that thing called uncertainty, also known as Divergence.

Now, governing is where those diverse inputs, challenges to status quo thinking, true Devil's Advocacy are needed to best anticipate the future and handle the inevitable unexpected. Again, divergence and convergence are the light and dark of a cycle. After 70 or so years of Divergence, social and techinological, we are in the midst of a cultural gut-check that pits fundamentalist against progressive, convergers against divergers. A lot of shit has happened at breakneck speed globally over the course of those seven decades. Many don't recognize the future as it presents; they think the future doesn't want them. Although it may not be our wish or desire, many out there--converger and diverger alike--deeply wish to gain their bearings, take a measurement and quantify our progress. Indeed, they want to qualify what "progress" means. Yes, in more encompassing and more centered terms....

So combining the reluctance of "most Americans" to be associated with "fringe" causes like Palestinian rights, and a fear of nappy headed fat people shouting and wearing funny clothes, I guess today's march and rally were "failures." I guess the DLC is right, and we've got to move our message farther to the center,

No, you and the DLC are correct in your ambition, but counterproductive in your tactics. You and the DLC need to move your message closer to the center of this:

[click to enlarge]

If there is one thing we all have in common it's that brain. Similarly, that brain compartmentalizes ideas and words and actions into fairly predictable patterns and metaphors. And people into tribes. It has preferences as to how it accepts or rejects information, how it judges "friend or foe?" It prides itself on logic, yet that R-complex does 90% of the decison-making for us, leaving the "rationalizing" to the younger, least senior hemisphere. Words come from the left. Feeling, the right. Action, the R-Cx. Where Democrat and Republican, diverger and converger pass each other, either snarling, or just like ships in the night, is their willingness to think of the other as truly other--alien, and therefore, dangerous. To ignore, and therefore succumb to the whims and vagaries of, that R-Cx that will take the lazy mans way out every time. To misunderstand its power and insist on a higher-minded egalitarianism first--do not pass go--before anything else happens, is to doom your ambitions and your ideals to good intended thought, not possibility or closure.

Many years back, a smart but selfish man named Newt Gingrich tapped into this realization and disseminated amongst his faithful a list of words, Language: A Key Mechanism of Control, keyed to trigger the distance and closure that I speak of. He beat us to it. But, thankfully, he--they--do not have a franchise on heart or heat.In fact, they violently and visciously abuse the knowledge they have.

Our answer? Beatitudes. At least, so far.

CD, your premise, one of autonomous self-determination, of endorsing a diverse inclusion is a noble one, beatific even. But, I fear, Democrats, Progressives--Divergers--like ourselves, have the burden of their open-mindedness to reign in and manage for a grerater good to occur. Up to this point, we are disarmed by our idealism, shackled by our purity and desire for deliverance by unwilling others. No politics, no pudding. Or, more bluntly, never bring a rock to knife fight.
[updated for dumb typos and bad title]