When I was young, I used to think that about half the right policies would be on the left, and half would be on the right. So I decided to sit right in the middle of the political spectrum, and see what both sides had to say.

(I was somewhat to the left economically. I thought we needed higher taxes, and was impressed that Senator Paul Simon was honest enough to simply come out and say that when he ran in the Democratic primaries.)

What happened suprised me. On point after point, I found that the "conservative" view was healthier, better for everyone (especially the poor), and/or more correct. Why, I wondered, are all the "right" views ending up on the right? And today I was pondering this again: "Why is the left wrong so often?" -- far more often than would be predicted by random chance.

The answer I arrived at suprised me: Because it will always work out that way in a two-party system.

(By "party", I don't mean the elected representatives, who often usurp their opponent's policies to win office, but I mean the ideological affinity groups which they play to.)

There are two kinds of situations:

• Situations where the "obvious" policy is the right one
• Situations where the "obvious" policy is the wrong one

When the "obvious" policy is the right one, we have no conflict. Should we outlaw murder? Of course -- that's a no brainer, so the left and right agree.

But what happens when the "obvious" answer doesn't turn out to be the right one? Some people are very smart -- and will realize the correct, but tricky answer very soon. Other people will start out believing the "obvious" (and wrong) answer, but will change their mind once the counter-evidence is presented.

Who does this leave on the "wrong" side?

1. People who have never heard the better argument.
2. People who cannot understand the better argument.
3. Selfish people who have been confronted with the evidence their policies may be or are wrong, but are unconcerned about harming people.

In other words, you're wrong because you're either ignorant (the first two cases) or evil (the last one).

This is how it is for a single issue. But still: Why should most (if not all) the "wrong" policies be clustered together on one side of the political spectrum?

Because the reason for being wrong on one issue often applies across many issues. If I'm too stubborn to change my mind about gun control, I'm probably also too stubborn to change my mind about affirmative action. If I don't understand why socialism doesn't work, I also won't understand why price controls hurt people.

So the divide is mostly a moral, intelligence, and/or experience-related one; it's not really about the issues, it's really more about one's character and experience. On the "tricky" issues, people who are at least minimally intelligent, concerned enough to ask around, and willing to change will eventually find the correct answer after having chosen the obvious (but wrong) one initially.

In fact, if you consider some population which has divided itself into two parties, you should be able to use this idea to spot the "right" political party without even examining the issues: Look for the ideological cluster with more ideological "converts" -- i.e. the one people typically belong to more as they age.

Besides knowledge and motivation, there's one more factor to discuss: care or motivation level; the apathetic and the activists.

On one hand, some people are politically apathetic, and thus will tend to reflect their environment or received wisdom. They may just support their country's system, or vote the way their parents or friends vote, or they may choose candidates more on character or looks than policy.

On the other hand, we have the activists and opinion-shapers, left and right, who have a strong interest in politics and trying to conform the world to their vision. These people care about their issues. They're out there, talking, advocating, and being seen.

Now let's go back to our two major characteristics which defined the "wrong" party:

1. Ignorance: You haven't yet learned that you're wrong.
2. Evil: You now have seen the evidence you are hurting people, but refuse to change.

Now consider what happens when you combine these two qualities with being an "activist" for the issue. Why would someone be an "activist" for a wrong or harmful policy?

1. Ignorance: Initially, ignorance is understandable. But what does it mean when someone puts far more effort into protesting or campaigning than into checking to see if their answer is actually right? It implies that they're more concerned about appearances than really fixing things. Or it may just mean they are simply unable to comprehend counter-arguments (though I find that hard to buy in most cases).

2. Evil (selfishness): Otherwise, if someone has now been confronted with the evidence their policy is hurting people, and are still unwilling to change or even consider it, it means some personal consideration is more important than hurting many other people.

So unfortunately, whenever a two party system arises, you will end up with one of them being led by a cluster of people who are wrong on most if not all the issues, and are generally either ignorant or evil: the immature, the vain, the greedy, the simple, the gullible, the nihlistic, and the power-hungry.

Of course, there can be bad people on the other side too: It's entirely possible to adopt a good policy because it benefits you too. Greed plus intelligence can motivate quite a lot of helpful behavior. Someone might support capitalism because they want wealth, for example, unaware it helps the poor as well.

Society is not harmed by people who do the right thing for selfish reasons. But an evil that is completely uninterested in what happens to others, and persists in the face of counter-evidence (or through willfull blindness) is a very serious threat indeed.