We would choose to share with the reader, a truly éclat-level breakthrough in our understanding, that unexpectedly occurred during recent ruminations, that lends needed comprehension to the dynamics of the current, byzantine mindset of the American public. We had, prior to such inspiration, long and fruitlessly, meditated upon the manifold diversity, extant in society, in worldview and opinion,

A virtual universe of negative comment, it seems, has been expressed, concerning the remarkably,  inordinate divisiveness of our Nation; the latter, publicly, but to some degree, sanguinely, styled as “E Pluribus Unum.” We had for some time speculated, as to whether such remarkable divergence of views was the product of innate inclination, the tactical efforts of its political rulers, or perhaps, a mixed combination of both. Even more confusing and puzzling was the hodge-podge of permutations and combinations of such polarized opinions, as can boggle the best analytical minds. We now, at long last, are in possession of the empirical explanation; but first, some necessary [planetary] dynamics.

Scientists believe that terrestrial planets have been formed by the gradual clumping together of dust and gas into hot blobs of matter, which, after certain prolonged stages, cool and congeal into our recognizable planetary forms. The singular and remarkable event of a later and second, morphing of planet Earth, was caused by the congealing of the copious amount of accumulating dust and detritus of time-consuming and useless political argument. In the slow course of astronomical events, such detritus, ultimately and unprecedently led, to the Earth’s bizarre alteration and morphing into two identically conjoined planetary conglomerates, constituting the present single planetary body.  This bizarre and previously unheard of, solar system dynamic, nevertheless, fortuitously, makes efficacious our present theme, viz., the theory of planetary-political diversity. 

As indicated, the gassy detritus of an uncanny multitude of disparate views on a myriad of contested issues, during Earth’s gradual second formation, seems to have endogenously clumped together into two distinct, but miraculously conjoined planetary conglomerates; each sector of the globe, as was much later observed,  manifesting fixed and immutably consistent combinations of views, and perceptions, as are diametrically at odds with the inhabitants of the other.

It is our observation, that the diverse cornucopia of differentiated opinion had, commensurate with the planet, itself, evolved in a such a distinctly patterned, bifurcated way, that it appears to be flawlessly predictable to deduce the entire myriad of views of any denizen, living on a sector of the newly conjoined planet, by the awareness of his position on any single, selected issue. This timesaving, if not rational, dynamic, may be seen, irrationally, to depend upon one’s sector-planetary loyalty as contrasted with his individualized, deliberative reason.   

This phenomenon, conceivably, may be explainable by the combination of the extreme passion, universally invested in each of the many controverted issues, in close combination with the feelings of sector- planetary loyalty expressed, in acrimonious, unmistakable contradiction to the disparate views of the residents of the other sector of the conjoined planet.

Recent determinative, hotly contested issues, have included the woman’s right to abortion, the regulation of firearms, immigration policy, gender issues, including, same-sex marriage, the degree of respect for science, and medicine [vaccine or veterinary horse wormer], global warming and other environmental issues, reformation of the criminal justice system, government assistance to the needy, minimum wage, taxation policy, voter interference and gerrymandering, church-state relationships, foreign aid, government health and safety regulation, and trade and tariff policy. The reality is that one can ascertain, not only the entire list a of predictable opinions, but, in reverse, the planetary venue of the individual, by his expressed view on any one of the listed hot issues. It would, no doubt, be socially inconvenient, to live next door to a dedicated denizen of the other “sector” of the conjoined planet.

Citizens of one part of the planet who favor legalized abortion, will predictably favor gun regulation, those, on the other, who would restrict immigration, would oppose the regulation of gun ownership,  the denizens of the portion of the planet who respect science and acknowledge the threat of global warming, will predictably oppose any impediment to voting and will favor a liberal immigration policy, those who are opposed to homosexual rights, will eschew the problem of global warming, those who affirmatively support governmental health regulations, will favor tax equity, citizens believing in the [mythical] “Christian White Nation,” and tax benefits for religious organizations, will oppose gay rights and favor restrictive voting, supporters of reform of the criminal law system will, predictably favor the regulation of firearms and liberal immigration policy, and so, on it goes.

The existence of predictable combinations of views on contested issues appear to be fundamentally explainable by such general matters as, the felt propriety of governmental responsibility for needy citizens, including oversight of health and safety regulations and an empirical respect for science and global warming; in contrasting comparison with those who fear Federal governmental authority, and rely upon “trusted” political personalities in lieu of the official findings of scientific research.  

There has proven to be predictable and generic determinants governing this empirical dynamic; which we perceive to be based upon the rational extent of upbringing, the amount of formal education and resultant enlightenment of the respective residents of each portion of the planet. Experience makes it abundantly clear, that the sector of the planet with citizens possessing the enlightening benefits of a liberal education, will tend to support an empathic and rational approach to mankind’s issues.


Published by


Retired from the practice of law'; former Editor in Chief of Law Review; Phi Beta Kappa; Poet. Essayist Literature Student and enthusiast.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s