How Bernie Sanders would have destroyed the US (part 1) —Through the lense of acceleration
- The political vision of America has been simplified into a battle of Conservatives and Liberals.
- What if one makes the radical claim that Conservatives and Liberals aren’t all that different, and rather they are the same thing but operate at different accelerated paces and timelines.
- The radical claim here is that, Conservatism is a decelerated version of Progressivism. And Progressivism is an accelerated version of Conservatism.
- If a Conservative government were to rule for 100 years, with the current trajectory, we may end up with the Progressive liberal government of 2017. 100 years of Conservatism will equal Obama 2016.
- And if we roll the Progressive film back; the Progressives of the early 20th century would be inline with the far-right of 2017.
- How is this radical claim even possible? Especially considering Progressives and Conservatives view themselves as polar opposites.
- Most Progressives in the 1970s (as do Progressives of 2017) valued a Professor’s expertise on his field of speciality. Let’s assume we’re talking to a political-science professor from Harvard in the 1970s:
- his view of reality was well respected and valued
- his political influence on his students was significant because he was assumed to be an expert in the field.
- he used social models and forecasts by other experts to determine his viewpoints on various political topics e.g. explanation of crime and violence as measured by social factors.
- Yet if we surveyed his 1970s political viewpoints on transexuals or gender, a liberal may be horrified to discover that he has conservative or ‘bigoted’ views. He’s obviously incorrect, right? Most 2017 liberals would consider him dead wrong. While 1970s liberals would fawn at every single one of his words. Hence the paradox.
- There’s one way to rebut this claim: one would be able to assume that a Professor would be more correct over time. That is, political knowledge and understanding comes closer to the truth incrementally over time i.e. A 1970s Professor is less correct than a 2017 Professor.
A 2027 Professor is more correct than a 2017 Professor.
This is what most liberal progressives believe today — academics of the past are less right than academics of the future.
- A more radical and opposing view would be to think that the models and forecasts used by these experts are not only wrong, but in the last few decades, have gotten even worse. A devolution of knowledge i.e. the consensus among experts have been getting further away from the truth.
- With all today’s technology and advances in mathematical/computer modelling, how is any of this possible? Is it possible that knowledge systems deteriorate as society advances with time?