What?
Here is the hypothesis: The discrepancy between conservative and liberal might be the difference between fractal and non-fractal (or the degree of fractality). The title is to be interpreted as Conservative implies fractality; Liberalism (contemporary) implies nonfractality.
Example: Consider a recent post by relatively conservative Ed Morrissey (Captain Ed; link), a discussion of a column by relatively liberal Jonathan Chait (link). (Important: This is an analysis of Morrissey's interpretation of Chait not of Chait's column independent of Morrissey.)
The Captain quotes Chait:
"'What's uncanny about the Bush administration is that its dissidents invariably recant, usually in zombie-like fashion.'"
And then, Cap'n notes,
"Wead has never been a 'dissident' in the Bush administration".
Wead "never even held a job with Bush", though "he certainly tried his best to get a position with him."
So where is the fractality and what is its significance?
The point is, in a fractal, there is self similarity at multiple scales within a phenomenon, process, creative product, or natural observation. In the Cap'n's (note the two apostrophes!) analysis, the "self-similarity" claimed by Chait occurs at only two levels, not the multiple levels between.
The same generalization applies to the Eason Jordan flap. First, several of those present at the meeting "heard" the same thing. Then, as the Captain and others discovered, Mr. Jordan had made similar accusations in other foreign venues. There was a consistency of inconsistency. But, the MSM refused to see the fractality. To their credit some liberal blogs acknowledged the evidence that other Jordan bloggers noted.
I assert that liberalism simulates fractality by recognizing apparent similarities at NO MORE THAN TWO LEVELS, and, such "similarities" apply only to non-liberals. The conservative looks for self-similarity (or dissimilarity) at multiple levels. What could be more reasonable? What could make more sense?
[Alternatively, liberals and conservatives see things through different fractals. But, since I can't see the liberal fractal, I'm not sure.]
Look at it in another way. Consider the apparent shortcomings of a recent President. It was asserted that his private actions, while clearly discordant with public "perceptions", were irrelevant. There need be no correlation. Missiles hitting pharmaceutical factories and camel tents have no connection with the underdesk of the Oval Office and a blue dress.
Then, there are the tapes of Mr. Wead. Curiously, there is really nothing new there (so far). What we see as the public President Bush is entirely consistent with what Mr. Wead managed to extract surrepitiously (while, simultaneously apparently attempting to acquire some advantage).
The authenticity treasured by the true conservative is a consistency in every level of life. No coincidence: this is a key component of Christianity, as derived from Judaism. That which is hidden will be revealed (therefore, make sure that that which is hidden is worthy of such revelation -- thus consistent with what is visible). And, that which was of value in prior ages does not lose value in the present. Whitewashed tombs can, conversely, conceal rot within.
Postmodernism (the implicit presumption of contemporary liberalism) declines to accept any kind of self-consistency in its art or science. Even the orthodoxies of previously contemporary liberalism, e.g., Darwinism, are not immune to attack.
Recent analysis from statistical mechanics and information theory shows that fractality -- self similarity at all relevant levels -- is the most probable stable state of a complex system (link). Coincidentally (but not really), in Moral Philosophy, the person of integrity is the one who demonstrates consistency of goodness at every level of life.
Intuitive inference: The discordance between left and right is that between the unnatural and the natural, between the fractal and the nonfractal. Catholic interpretation: God's creation is good (at every level); the corruption due to the sin of the first humans is superficial, not pervasive. If we reclaim, through the great gift of the Passion, Death, and Resurrection, what was intended in the beginning, the goodness of God's creation permeates all of creation at every level.
All of this from a single blogger's post? Hey, Cap'n Ed is Catholic, isn't he?
And Catholics believe that all that scientists authentically discovery of God's creation will only enhance the his glory and our understanding of his goodness.
(Best wishes for the recover of First Mate.)
