...
*Paradigm Shifts in Politics*
to simplify the question,
“*Paradigm shift*, sometimes known as *extraordinary science* or *revolutionary
science*, is [used] to describe a change in basic assumptions within the
ruling theory of
science.
It is in contrast to his idea of normal
science.”
wikip-
i really am just splashing around in this vat of an idea and am looking for
any threads of thought. essentially, there is a hype *and* a reality
surrounding a *possible paradigm shift in the mechanics and architecture of
politics*. i dont really want this to sound as far out as some overly naive
‘hope’rator, i am talking more about the peaks and crashes of politics in
history. i know i thrown this poster around before (
http://ping.fm/mIFuN)
[image: [History of the Political Parties]]
now theres a newer one (http://ping.fm/qnktq)
[image: [History of the Political Parties II]]
if you look at these two charts, it has essentially been since 1885-1889
since the two major political parties have maintained their coequal tents.
historically speaking to just partisanship, for the dems to take the uptick
in population is only to be expected by the pattern displayed over the past
120 years.
by paradigm shift, im speaking more to the core of what makes politicking a
viable means of trafficking power; consent of the masses. theres two parts
forward on this. a) we dont live in a state of voter apathy, it’s denial. b)
politics operate on overt and coercive levels. the overt level would be the
language of problems and the language of solutions. the people will move
from denial of the death of democracy to anger at the psychobabble from
problem solvers (obama is not necessarily immune from such a charge).
im making this range up i guess, but it seems to me that the ages of 16-35
are the primary settling phases where a person is most in the vise of
cultural influences; before, too impressionable and inexperienced, after,
too stolid and inflexible. it seems to me that the range of people born
1955-1970 are from the school of Depression era politics.
the central idea, then, is that there has been a period of history extending
from 1885 with the rise or splinter of the Democratic-Republican party (i am
referring to way back when they were formally the same party), forward to
the current time (where they still cycle back and forth between themselves).
during this period, they have traded in the same languages and problems to
the same American mindset (implied: our minds havent changed since the
post-war south). the arc of history that climaxed with the new deal,
perhaps, should be coming to a close. obama is likely the sacrificial lamb
(should he be elected) and will likely be the point of time during which the
democrats will collapse. many of the ‘revolutionary’ moments and times of
this period are illusionary in terms of their actual evolutionary impact on
politics; the cold war, the civil rights movement, and rise of terrorism.
the closest thing to evolutionary, for better or worse, would have to be the
idea of nation building insofar as it is considered a decentralized,
globalized means for virally constructing hives of co-interested parties. im
no NWO/World Bank conspiracy theorist, but that idea forward in that
direction is so wholly removed from the current language of power that most
people can only assume it is a kook-imagined spectre. its just an idea
though, the common tongue may be unable to speak it. however, just as they
may not quite understand string theory and black holes, the people and their
common tongue worship them on high as lofty ideas they assume are true based
on arguments from authority. once the common tongue develops a bit more of
the globalization language and such, quickly the isolationists will die off.
(ironic that nation-building and globalization are supposed to be ideas a
kin to separate parties)
mfg