When I got my Ph.D. in formal political theory, I learned that the politics of large democratic polities today, such as metropolises, states, and nations, are usually aligned along a single “ideological” dimension. (E.g., “left” vs. “right”.) What exactly that dimension is about, however, has varied greatly by time and place. It seems to more result from a game theoretic equilibrium than from a single underlying dimension of choice; the real policy space remains highly dimensional.
However, it wasn’t until years later than I noticed that this is not usually true for the politics of families, firms, clubs, or small towns. These usually are usually run by a single stable dominant coalition, i.e., a ruling class. This ruling class might sometimes offer their larger community some options to choose between. But mostly this is when the ruling elite doesn’t care, or wants to make others feel more involved. Sometimes real fights break out among candidate coalitions within the elite, but these fights tend to be short and behind the scenes.
The same applies to communities with no formal organizations. That is, to “mobs”. While in the modern world large mobs tend to split along a main ideological dimension, small mobs tend to be dominated by a main consensus, who roughly agree on what to do and how. Though with time, smaller mobs are more often becoming aligned to larger political ideologies.
This one-dimensional story also does not apply to large ancient areas which encompassed many different polities. These areas look more like a disorganized set of competing interests. So a one dimensional political alignment isn’t a fully general law of politics; it has a domain of applicability.
A few centuries ago, the world was composed of many competing nations, with no overall organization. During the great world wars, and the Cold War, there was an overall binary alignment. Since the end of the Cold War, we have seen a single coalition dominate the world. And over recent decades we have seen policy around the world converge greatly around the opinions of an integrated world elite.
I’m tempted to put this all together into the following integrated theory of a standard progression. Imagine suddenly moving a large random group of diverse strangers to a new isolated area, where they could survive indefinitely. At first their choices would be individual. Then they’d organize into small groups that coordinate together. Then into larger groups.
Eventually many large groups might compete for control of the area, or for the allegiance of the people in the area. In their bids for control, such groups might emphasize how much they respect the many kinds of diversity represented by people in the area. They don’t intend to repress other groups, they just want to rule for the good of all. As people became more similar, they wouldn’t bother with such speeches.
Eventually, these groups would merge and align along a single main dimension, which might be labeled in terms of two main rival groups, or in terms of some ideological axis. For a while, the two sides of this main dimension might find themselves at a stalemate. Or one side might win, but the midpoint of their conflict might be continually redefined to result in two equally sized sides. This main ideological dimension would encompass many issues, but hardly all. It might encompass more issues as the fight for control got fiercer. But the fight should get weaker as outside threats became more salient.
Eventually a single coalition would come to dominate. Especially in a society with many social “high grounds” where such a coalition could come to control and resist displacement. This situation might then oscillate between a single ruling elite and a main axis of conflict. But slowly over time, a single coalition would win more. The members of the ruling elite would come to know each other better, become more similar, and agree more on who should be among their members. They would focus more on reassuring each other of loyal to their class, and on making sure their kids could join that elite.
A ruling coalition who felt insecure in its power might work harder to seek out and repress any dissent. At the extreme, it might create a totalitarian regime that demanded allegiance and conformity in every little area of life. And it might focus more on entrenching itself than on improving society as a whole. As a ruling coalition became more secure, it might more tolerate minor dissent, and demand less conformity, but also focus on internal conflicts and division of spoils, instead of its society as a whole.
This story seems to roughly describe national, and world, history. My nation is becoming more integrated and similar over time, with actions coordinated at larger scales, national politics coming more to dominate local politics, and national politics coming to color more areas and issues in life. And a single dimension aligned to a global cultural elite is coming to dominate politics across the world.
It seems plausible that toward the end of the transition between a period of one main ideological dimension, and a period of a single integrated ruling class, the final main political dimension would be aligned for and against that final ruling class. That is, the last ideology question would be: shall we let this ruling class take over. The pro-ruling-class side would be more dominant in places that are more integrated with the overall culture, and less dominate in places that cared more about local issues.
This model suggests that our current era of roughly balanced forces on two sides of one main ideological axis is likely to be temporary. Eventually a single integrated elite culture will dominate the world, entrenching itself in mob opinion and via as many institutions as possible, especially global institutions. It may then focus more on further entrenching itself and on repressing dissent than on making the world better. As everyone becomes more similar, conformity pressures will become stronger, as in most small towns today. And the entrenched global institutions may then rot. After which our total human civilization might even decline, or commit suicide.