Purple Theory
Firstly, let me thank Ender for all the work he did setting up this new version of Swords Crossed.
I'd like my first post here at this new Swords Crossed to be about the purple nation logo. The source art I assume is from the widely spread purple images of the 2004 election 
. Here is one for the 2006 congressional race provided by this guy at Princeton .
My belief in relativism gets bogged down in esoteric epistemology, often, when it comes to debate, but of course, there is a much simpler and practical aspect of relativism, a perspectivism, which really merely points out that, given Argument A, there are N sides (not 2) to the issues it raises. The sides are not entirely without limit, of M proposed sides of an argument, some can be rejected due to:
- logical inconsistency
- lack of supporting evidence
- manipulative arguments, disingenuous sides of the argument
- contravention to local law
These and other criteria can reject a side of an argument from public consideration... but one will still end up with a set of sides greater than one. The Purple Theory of American politics would -- should -- be that proper solutions pull the best ideas from each side, and is always informed by the concerns represented. It is not with a spirit of compromise we do this, just to be nice or get along, though that's nice, it's from a belief that the strongest ideas, the best national ideas, are made from all points of view. The "full view" is all the N sides. Any "expert" in the debate would and will know all N sides, and be able to present them.
It is my view that of the N sides of an argument that remain standing as philosophies with support among the people, then the "complete view" on Issue A is not the best of the N sides, but all of them together. And a solution to Problem A, which lead to Argument A and ultimately all N sides of A... will have to take elements not from just the "best of N sides" but from all N sides. Thus, if we want safe elections, and I know I do, it's not enough to compile the liberal requirements... but it is also necessary to collect conservative concerns. So for example, I have found that conservatives, when asked about safe elections, want to require ID on a national level (I have to give an ID already, but I guess in some states you don't have to). To reform elections, to make them robust, would require incorporating ideas like this even though, frankly, that issue does not come up as readily among liberals concerned about safe elections, who right now are more concerned about paper trails for e-voting and about partisan election officials. I don't think the ID issue is the main problem myself, but it's clear that addressing that is a part of a complete solution, it is a valid concern, a real policy should fairly take it into account. I can see that without it having been initially my concern.
The purple map reminds me that real solutions take into account all the people represented, and helps to remind us that a politician represents even those that voted against them. It may not be easy, some purple counties are purple because the individuals are part liberal, part conservative... or simply neither conservative nor liberal. Some counties are purple because they have a divided community of radical conservatives and liberals... it might not be easy to represent the latter as one but the reality remains. It is possible for people to appreciate the best ideas and concerns of their opponents. It would behoove us all to be honest enough to see those strong points in the ideas of others.
The purple theory of American Politics is one that claims that it is GOOD we disagree, that by taking different points from which to construct our opinion and give our view, we triangulate on real solutions, we can specialize our concerns to our individual human nature, and still ensure that the primary concerns of our school of thought are part of a whole solution in which every contingency and constituency is taken into account. Again, this is not just to be nice, but because two heads really are better than one. Stereo-vision achieves a depth unavailable to mono-vision. Multiple data points increase statistical accuracy.
This is, in fact, common sense, it is, in the end, how people behave in their day to day lives... by taking the view of others into account even if they see it differently themselves... but in politics the illusion that only one side will survive "in the end" has dire consequences. The idea that one idea should really be alone... that is an error that leads to a negative pathos of distance. Instead of taking advantage of the fact that we have a problem surrounded, we fire back and forth at each other.
The Purple Theory is one that remembers we do have the problem surrounded, we can in fact beat it, and we can even use what is best in those that have a different view from us. Sometimes there is no compromise, true, but the foundation of reality, of national politics, of a democratic system is, usually, there is room not only for compromise, but for hybrid solutions that excel at taking everything into account.
I leave you with this animation from the last few decades of US election, from the same guy at princeton as above.
Comments :
Devil's advocate question:
How would you respond to the charge that American politics in general are shifted to the Right? That is, even the ostensible American Left would be considered, at best, centrist when compared to Europe (just as an example).
I'd still agree with you that the "proper" (that is, the most fitting) solution would be that solution most responsive to its constituents, in which case no one cares what Europe thinks. But when we get into larger questions of ideology, should that have an impact?
I'll use the gay marriage example, since it's one I've discussed a lot on here. Marriage supporters point to other countries, against whose stances the American middle would definitely appear to the Right on a broader spectrum. Is this an irrational argument on the part of supporters? (Marriage opponents could just as easily point to executions of gays as a sign that the American middle is to the left). The issue becomes further complicated when we take into account changes over time - the middle shifts all over the place. On this issue, our current middle is far to the left of what it used to be, and I'll predict that it's far to the right of what it will be.
So I want to comment you for using the word "proper" here instead of "correct" or "right" or anything like that. It may be a function of your relativism to avoid words like that, but you've definitely used the proper word, so to speak.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
proper
personally, I think the discourse continually shift to the right, but then again, it has been drug left a few times as well, so it is a matter of going back far enough to average in leftward moves.
In my life it's gone to the right.
I personally do think that we should take in the experiences of the world... but the public debate is ultimately a domestic affair, so if no one shared the european view in the US, so be it. However, there are many USians that would in fact bring in such experiences, doing so as Americans... so those experiences will always be a part of the domestic debate now that the globe is so small and its experiences so available (to those interested).
Purple rocks!
You have expressed this much better than I ever could. It's an intuitive, internalized, pragmatic approach for me yet you've written it in a way that I hope makes sense to partisans. Great post.
Nice. -nt.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.
Map
I'd just like to point out that while the purple map is better than the one used by the networks on election night, it is still misleading.
What is wrong with it is that it shows patterns by land area not population. So big blocks of sparsely settled land in the west get shown in a given color, but represent very few people.
There have been attempts to fix this my making the area of each district proportional to the population. This produces a map where the Northeast and California bulge out. I think the best way would be for the brightness of the colors to represent the population, but I've not seen this.
Why this is important is because when looked at this way the power of the "reds" shows up as much smaller than it would appear otherwise. The majority of the population is "liberal' (in the loosest sense), but this is not represented properly either graphically or by the winner-takes-all electoral process.
--- Policies not Politics
But is that map
corrected for relative weight of influence, as well? In other words, there may be more voters in NYC than in rural Montana, but because of our system of represenation, a Montana citizen's vote "counts" more than that of an NYC resident.
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
uhhuh
In the loosest sense of being untrue.
"To discuss evil in a manner implying neutrality, is to sanction it." AR
Perhaps his account
was expunged (can't find him as a user nor his past comments), but P. Rosenberg had some great poll statistics to show that the country believes in liberal causes but disdains the label 'liberal' because of the negative stigma conservatives attach to it.
I guess it matters how you measure these things (presidential race, congressional representatives, polls on issues, etc), but I think, for the most part, I would consider it a liberal country.
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
Here you go:
Paul's account is still active
. The polls you're talking about were actually spread over several diaries, all of them aimed at Ender personally. :)
Saint, n. A dead sinner revised and edited. - Ambrose Bierce
Thanks for the link! n/t
We are all mediators, translators. - Derrida
yup
this is an image from the 2004 results I linked above.
it's spatially warped to map population...
I think the way to do it...
...that makes the most sense is to divide the state population by the number of pixels it takes up. Then color each pixel based on the proportion of party vote. 10 pixels in a state that voted 60-40 dem would have 6 blue pixels and 4 red.
Of course it depends on what exactly you want to show. Another way that I've actually seen done is to create a sort of bar graph for each county that's height is based on the population. If you do that you see a lot of wide little red towers and a few towering blue towers.
I came. I saw. I posted.
Veni, Vidi, Bitchy.