You may recall http://www.omnisu.com/fanatic.jpg . Political views also follow a bell curve. The majority is in the middle, with relativly few people at either extreme. At one extreme, you have Micheal Moore and Howard Dean. At the other extreme you find Anne Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. In the center, you find John Kerry, George Bush, Al Gore, Bill Clinton... in fact, every person who has ever run for president under one of the two big parties has been a moderate. Certainly, Kerry is more liberal than Bush, but both are closer to the center than to either extreme.
The closeness of our recent elections shows just how close to the center our candidates are. Bush won 51% to 49%. That means 51% thought he was on the same side of the bell curve as them, and 49% thought he wasn't. But how does this show that he is moderate? The average man, as we saw with my related fanaticism graph, always believes he is right. That's right as in correct, not right as in conservative. Since the average man is always right, he places himself square in the center of the political spectrum and assumes that more people agree with him than with anyone else. From his perspective, anyone who is more liberal than he is is 'the left' and anyone more conservative is 'the right'. Because this is a bell curve, the closer to the 'far right' Bush gets, the more people will label him 'conservative' and the less will label him 'liberal'. This isn't a problem - if Kerry moved towards the 'far left' to compensate.
Lets imagine, for a moment, that Bush dove into the far-right during his campaign. Kerry stayed right where he was, barely left of center. For every two steps Bush takes to the right, he loses 1 step worth of votes to Kerry. Due to the shape of the bell curve, each step is smaller than the one before. But in an election as close as 51-49, that first step is overwhelming. If Bush takes just two steps right, the election is tied. Why? Those people just right of the center who saw Bush as 'the same as me' and Kerry as 'just a little more liberal than me' now see both candidates as 'just a little more X than me'. As Bush moves farther from center, he becomes 'much more conservative than me', but Kerry remains 'just a little more liberal'. Their vote switches, and Kerry wins.
There are other consequences of the bell curve. Let's foster an example. We shall imagine there is a man whom we shall call 'G.S.' who is infinitly liberal. He is as far-left as it is possible to be. He is even more left than that. He is at left infinity. From his perspective - looking from left infinity - everyone else is to his right. But, remember, he's at infinity. Any point that is not at left infinity is infinitly far away from him. If you are even a little conservative, one millionth of a percent conservative, you are infinitly far away from G.S. Infinitly far away from left infinity is, naturally, right infinity. From the perspective of G.S., everyone is the far-right.
But, of course, it's impossible to be infinitly left. Even G.S. has a little conservatism in him. But it's a bell curve. There aren't many people over there with him. There are almost no people as liberal as him at all. He sees a vast 'conservative conspiracy' - the peak of the bell curve - looming on the horrizon. He grabs those closest to him, and together they become the 'far left'. They lash out, but not at the right as you would expect. They can't even see the right, it is dwarfed by the vastness of the middle - which they think is the right.
A similiar situation arises at the other end of the spectrum, where the far-right also attacks the middle. The middle, confused, disengages from both extremes, and the shape of the bell curve changes. It now has three peaks. The middle peak, the original peak, is insurmountable. It is the everest of bell curves. But at the far-right and far-left are tiny little peaks. They are seperated from the middle by an ever widening gulf. Howard Dean, a politician that couldn't seperate himself from his minnie-peak and attach himself to the center, was rejected by his own party. They choose instead the moderate candidate.
The minnie-peaks shout louder and louder to be heard across the gap, but more and more of the middle simply ignored them. The people - the center - will never support them; so they resort to other means. They file frivolous lawsuits. The right sues a school district to force them to teach Intelligent Design, and the left sues the same school district to change 'Christmas break' to 'winter break'. One side screams that Iran is the biggest danger the world has ever faced, and the other side insists that it was actually Dick Cheney who devised 9/11. Both forget history, and both forget common sense. They scream, and, not long after it has begun, the center gets sick of it.
They disengage. They stop paying attention.
They go about their lives, perferring ignorance to wading through the slop both sides spew to find the tiny kernels that, only when combined, reveal the truth.
The closeness of our recent elections shows just how close to the center our candidates are. Bush won 51% to 49%. That means 51% thought he was on the same side of the bell curve as them, and 49% thought he wasn't. But how does this show that he is moderate? The average man, as we saw with my related fanaticism graph, always believes he is right. That's right as in correct, not right as in conservative. Since the average man is always right, he places himself square in the center of the political spectrum and assumes that more people agree with him than with anyone else. From his perspective, anyone who is more liberal than he is is 'the left' and anyone more conservative is 'the right'. Because this is a bell curve, the closer to the 'far right' Bush gets, the more people will label him 'conservative' and the less will label him 'liberal'. This isn't a problem - if Kerry moved towards the 'far left' to compensate.
Lets imagine, for a moment, that Bush dove into the far-right during his campaign. Kerry stayed right where he was, barely left of center. For every two steps Bush takes to the right, he loses 1 step worth of votes to Kerry. Due to the shape of the bell curve, each step is smaller than the one before. But in an election as close as 51-49, that first step is overwhelming. If Bush takes just two steps right, the election is tied. Why? Those people just right of the center who saw Bush as 'the same as me' and Kerry as 'just a little more liberal than me' now see both candidates as 'just a little more X than me'. As Bush moves farther from center, he becomes 'much more conservative than me', but Kerry remains 'just a little more liberal'. Their vote switches, and Kerry wins.
There are other consequences of the bell curve. Let's foster an example. We shall imagine there is a man whom we shall call 'G.S.' who is infinitly liberal. He is as far-left as it is possible to be. He is even more left than that. He is at left infinity. From his perspective - looking from left infinity - everyone else is to his right. But, remember, he's at infinity. Any point that is not at left infinity is infinitly far away from him. If you are even a little conservative, one millionth of a percent conservative, you are infinitly far away from G.S. Infinitly far away from left infinity is, naturally, right infinity. From the perspective of G.S., everyone is the far-right.
But, of course, it's impossible to be infinitly left. Even G.S. has a little conservatism in him. But it's a bell curve. There aren't many people over there with him. There are almost no people as liberal as him at all. He sees a vast 'conservative conspiracy' - the peak of the bell curve - looming on the horrizon. He grabs those closest to him, and together they become the 'far left'. They lash out, but not at the right as you would expect. They can't even see the right, it is dwarfed by the vastness of the middle - which they think is the right.
A similiar situation arises at the other end of the spectrum, where the far-right also attacks the middle. The middle, confused, disengages from both extremes, and the shape of the bell curve changes. It now has three peaks. The middle peak, the original peak, is insurmountable. It is the everest of bell curves. But at the far-right and far-left are tiny little peaks. They are seperated from the middle by an ever widening gulf. Howard Dean, a politician that couldn't seperate himself from his minnie-peak and attach himself to the center, was rejected by his own party. They choose instead the moderate candidate.
The minnie-peaks shout louder and louder to be heard across the gap, but more and more of the middle simply ignored them. The people - the center - will never support them; so they resort to other means. They file frivolous lawsuits. The right sues a school district to force them to teach Intelligent Design, and the left sues the same school district to change 'Christmas break' to 'winter break'. One side screams that Iran is the biggest danger the world has ever faced, and the other side insists that it was actually Dick Cheney who devised 9/11. Both forget history, and both forget common sense. They scream, and, not long after it has begun, the center gets sick of it.
They disengage. They stop paying attention.
They go about their lives, perferring ignorance to wading through the slop both sides spew to find the tiny kernels that, only when combined, reveal the truth.
