Putting the “Science” in Political Science

Diffusion (and its analog concerning water, osmosis).  Electric potential (aka “voltage”).  Heat.  Gravity.  Air pressure.  Without going into details, all physical and chemical phenomena these concern a high-to-low gradient of different entities to achieve equilibrium.  A concentrated fluid will make osmotic balance by the flow of water from the less “concentrated” (but richer in water) to the more dehydrated (and therefore more “concentrated” side).  Voltage dissipates from differences in positive and negative charges (thus giving us electric current).  Hot water poured into cold water will become lukewarm, since the temperature gradient has evened out.  Air pressure differences cause wind.  And of course, the higher something is above the ground, the sharper gravity’s effects will be.

This logic can be applied to politics in a similar way.  There’s the so-called “1%”  (the billionaires and multimillionaires) and the other “99%,” which includes everyone else.  Most likely you and me.

I am not technically endorsing any candidate, but Bernie Sanders definitely has a plan that should cause an “equilibrium” in politics.  By building a middle class, which could be whatever of proportions you could conceive, at the very least two quarters of rich and poor and half in the middle class.  More desirably, you can have lesser proportions of super-rich and super-poor and make a broader middle class (i.e., over half).  Now isn’t that wonderful?

If politics and religion are the titans of hush-hush thought, and religion already has plenty of its own tension with science, well, now I have an analogy that could be as provocative as it is pleasant.