Wednesday, January 23, 2013
I will convert the political principles to mathematics, to simplify it for those inclined to mathematics, but not inclined to political science.
Danny says 1+1=4
Ralph says 1+1=3
Larry says 1+1=2
Danny has, through mostly nefarious means, convinced the majority that his answer is correct, and therefore 1+1=4 remains the reigning philosophy of the day.
Ralph knows he needs Larry in order to create the majority needed to dethrone Danny.
Larry acknowledges that Ralph is closer to being correct than Danny, but still wrong in actuality. Larry's cruel dilemma is that he knows most people will refuse to believe 1+1=2. Should he concede and unify with Ralph and those who believe 1+1=3, in order to create a unified majority against Danny, or should he stick to the truth of the matter, that 1+1=2?
If Larry concedes:
Ralph and Larry might eventually dethrone Danny, but Ralph and Larry will inevitably disagree about what the truly correct answer actually is, and a fragmentation of the unity will repeat itself, likely with more resolve to remain seperate entities than before. Every effort on Larry's part of convincing Ralph that his answer is still wrong falls victim to the "majority" argument. Ralph strongly suggests that a division based upon the dogmatic idea that 1+1=2 equates to a rigid belief that 1+1=4.
If Larry does not concede and sticks to his idea, that 1+1=2:
No majority occurs, Danny's answer remains the reigning philosophy, and then Ralph accuses Larry of being the reason Danny's idea remains prominent, and in some cases, even accuses Larry of believing 1+1=4.
Now, to convert this back to politics.
Danny = Danny the Democrat
Ralph = Ralph the Republican
Larry = Larry the Libertarian