Newton's First Law of Motion: "An object at rest
tends to stay at rest and an object in motion tends to stay in motion with the
same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force."
Casnig's First Law of Motions: "There are two types of
troublemakers in the world: those who want change, and those who resist."
We seem to associate freedom with change, and stability with comfort - a
quick glance at the personalities of camping reveals this nature. The light and
freely changing trailblazer contrasts with the "bring everything but the
kitchen sink" homesteader. When these two characters collide, the results
are of political proportions.
In much of the world, the liberal platform is often confused with socialist agenda, simply because socialism is not such an established form as, say,
theocracy or monarchy. Liberals tend to come from the boiling landscape of the
city, while their conservative counterparts have a stronghold in the subdued
pastoral settlements of their forefathers. [Here's an article
reflecting on this phenomenon in the 2000 American election, from U.S.A.
Today]
http://www.usatoday.com/news/vote2000/pres08.htm
We associate "radical" with "change"; just as we
associate religion or royalty with "tradition". These bindings are
quite escapable, but rarely without division. The Church of England was a child
of such dissent: a
sect based on the ability to divorce. The original (parent) church
preserved its
traditional ethical vector, while the king pursued his own, more liberal vector by splitting off in another
direction.
We associate "young" with "change", just as we may find
the elderly "set in their ways". As Winston Churchill said, "If
you are not a liberal at 20, you have no heart. If you are not a conservative at
40, you have no brain." Perhaps our youthful dynamism eventually settles
in for the long haul. We may even see this on the store shelves.
The blue = liberal, red = conservative motif of American politics is not a
global standard by any means. Each political party of each country chooses its
banner in a process ranging from dictated to arbitrary. Once established,
however, these become entrenched into the landscape of the product base. A
purchase of red, is a conservative vote; a purchase of blue, is a
democratic vote, the purchase of a third party color is a wasted vote.
The soft drinks Coke and Pepsi can be divided by color: Coke, with its
certain red branding, and Pepsi, with its patriotic red-white-and-blue background, but clearly
blue branding. A quick evaluation
based on color would indicate that Coke is "conservatively"
thirst-quenching, while Pepsi caters to more "liberal" tastes. If this were
true, we'd see it in their respective marketing campaigns - especially the most
successful ones.
If you live in North America, you would not pass through a winter without
seeing that Coke supports Christmas - and especially Santa Claus. Our modern red
and white image of Santa is, itself, a
marketing success of Coke. Nothing could be more indicative of conservatism
than tradition itself. Christmas in America now has a tradition of red and white.
But as classic an icon as Santa, the 1980's brought in a combination
late-baby-boomer/early-generation-X bursting with new money. Introducing
"New Coke". "New", being synonymous with "young",
would accept defeat of the "old", as the bold social changes of the
1970's all but wiped out "family values" and "tradition".
This "New Coke" was often criticized for tasting like a Pepsi
knockoff, being nothing more than Coke with a decidedly young target market
("Coke is it!" campaign). Soon after this legendary marketing
fiasco, enter the old version of Coke with a new name, reminding us of
tradition: Coke Classic. It seems that customers of this traditional
beverage were not interested in change.
Then there is Pepsi - the choice of a new generation: Generation Next !
"Choice" is freedom, and "new" and "next"
equal change (...and let us not slip by this overtly subliminal
"Generation X" !). How about "Pepsi - For those who think
young!" All total, the rhetoric of Pepsi talks the talk of youth and
liberal thinking, but will it walk the walk?
Moonwalker Michael Jackson had a good run with Pepsi, just as Madonna got into the
groove of things as well as the Spice Girls and, as above, Britney Spears. We
can't ignore the fact that the outrageous likes of the Osborne's and Austin Powers seem
oddly juxtaposed to R&B fixture Ray Charles and soulstress Aretha
Franklin - but on closer examination the common factor is that they've all kept
their cool. But how to tap into the conservative stronghold of the
heartland? Enter Gen-X country diva Faith Hill. It seems that since the early
'80s, Pepsi has somehow found that the fusion of youth, music and soda makes for
a sellers market and a shareholders cakewalk.
[Perhaps it should be no surprise that eventually, Coke would introduce Cherry
(red) Coke, while Pepsi would match marketing steps with Pepsi Blue. The
battle for color-branding notwithstanding, both companies agreed with a platform
of cola flavored with a fruit, to stay in line with the broader market
trend favoring fruit-flavored beverages, while retaining a color basis in their
respective choice of fruits.]
Coke and Pepsi, then, could be stated as ideological opposites: that of
tradition versus that of change; that of convention versus that of innovation;
that of experience versus that of exploration; that of "old hand"
versus that of "up-and-comings"; that of the classic
versus that of the new; that of set versus free; that of established
versus that of enterprising; that of aged versus that of young.
Grouping these associations, we get: Coke (red) = Conservative = tradition,
experience, old hand, classic, set, established, aged, and; Pepsi (blue) =
Liberal = change, innovation, exploration, up-and-coming, new, free,
enterprising, young. These are strikingly familiar terms - they are the stuff of
politics; the rhetoric of political platforms.
And the stuff of nature - and of human nature.
The McCarthy era set a standard for virtually every aspect of day-to-day
living, demonizing artists as "free-thinking anarchistic commie robots". The Iron Curtain was drawn, and America secreted itself
from being changed by these invading forces. This deemed threat of political
infection led to a few of our more memorable societal antibodies, such as the "Comics Code",
"suspected
communist" blacklists, or such propaganda films as "Invasion of the
Body Snatchers". Ironically, America would be under far more
thought control from within, than was ever threatened by its "enemies of
conscience". But it was only trying to preserve its way
of life...
The youth movement of the '60s became the cultural revolution
of the '70s; a seemingly unstoppable force of change. This
destabilization of American culture became a part of the culture itself - a
built-in "steady state" social upheaval which would, in itself, die a
rhetorical death of a thousand cuts with the condemnation: "politically
correct". It seems that the direction we are headed in is as fixed as the
traditions we departed from. We have become set in our revolutionary ways!
The most
radical revolutionary will become a conservative
the day after the revolution.
—Hannah Arendt
Conservatism is Newton's "object at rest" just as
"Liberalism" is Newton's "object in motion". Whether an
object or politico is stationary or moving, it resists change, being
determined in its existing status. Within a political forum, board or committee
meeting, "making a motion" is quite aptly named, as it will be
deemed rebellious by the conservative members, or stubborn by the
liberal members. This results in the following Sci-Phi statement:
"There are two types of
troublemakers in the world: those who want change, and those who resist."
-- J. D. Casnig
But what has all of this got to do with the "Language of
Metaphors"?
Recognizing these differences leads to many metaphors across every field
imaginable. Why? Because inertia, energy and change are omnipresent features of
the universe. Whether through the sober stability of gravity or the flightiness
of the energetic, we seem to readily accept in our rhetoric that:
the ultimate in
stability is to remain in one place for a great measure of time,
while, the ultimate in change is to travel a great measure of space while remaining
still in time.
or
the limit of stability: { d = 0 ; t = ∞ ; E = ∞ }
|
the limit of change: { d = ∞ ; t = 0 ; E = 0 }
where "stability" refers to an object held in space and
"change" is a change of an object's position along a vector.
By substituting each of these elements, such as "project" as the
object and "the team" as the source of energy, we get the example:
Lacking further funding, the team abandoned the
project.
To abandon, then, is to remove the energy, will or driving force from a
vehicle. Typically, when a project runs out of spirit or money it becomes
abandoned. A team spirit is often kept going by cash incentives.
Bonaparte's "An army marches on its stomach" is as true of food
energy, as it is of fighting spirit, since one prominent side-effect of hunger
is depression (ultimately "lying around all day doing nothing"). The segment "an energetic spirit" describes one's will as
being a carrier of energy, as to have an empty spirit is to be without
life. The phrase "investment is the lifeblood of progress"
naturally follows, with cousins "money powers a projects
development", "financial keeps
innovation moving forward" or "putting capital behind
research keeps it running. [Note:
since (apparently) energy cannot be created, all so-called "sources"
of energy are, in fact merely "conductors"]
Should a project enter a coma, it can be revived. Applying the commonly accepted project-rescue terms "cash flow",
"injection of cash" and "liquid assets", results in the
implication that money takes an otherwise motionless solid and makes it move
forward or turns it (back) into a liquid. Further, this
suggests that there is no elemental difference between a
"moving solid" and a "liquid" - which stands to reason: a
solid plus energy will move along a path; a solid plus energy will become
liquid, too. Whether the unified motion in a single direction of a flying solid,
or the sum of individual molecular movements in all directions of a standing
liquid; distance, energy and time are expressing themselves through matter (and
don't get me started on the effects of "pressure"...!).
If this is true, then when energy abandons liquid matter, it would result in
solid matter. A freezer causes energy to abandon matter. Since the matter will
then hold its position, for a lengthy time, highly reluctant to change from outside
energy, it clearly is "approaching the limits of stability", and is
therefore preserved. Frozen in state, no doubt, by a
"cold-blooded" conservative!
