'I' and 'we' must cooperate for the survival of self and species

There is a biological difference in the two versions of survival. The chemistry of self-preservation and the molecules of survival of the species are not the same. In fact, they involve opposite hemispheres of the brain. Perpetuation of the species is mediated by the hormone oxytocin, which is released in the mother during labor and nursing. Mothers make sacrifices daily, their sleep, their bodies, their total energies on behalf of their offspring.

In contrast, the atoms of stress and action, norepinephrine and epinephrine, are the instruments for self-survival. They follow the prime directive to stay alive. They are the biochemical power that drives the lost from abandoning hope and the trapped to keep digging. The genes must stay alive at all costs, and the body is equipped with a defense system against all threats, domestic and foreign. The problem is the two solutions are antithetical. Self-survival becomes self-sacrifice when you save others. The good of the one is subsumed by the needs of the many. Or in the words of Spock and Kirk of "Star Trek," "Because the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the ... one."

Can a solution in politics be a conscious effort to reconcile the apparent contradictions between self, "I," and species, "we"? Can the political parties grown up from the seeds of these contradicting biological needs come together somewhere midway between the two sides and realize the issues of survival apply to both bodies? The question is: Can the two parties exercise their core beliefs without denying or attacking the other survival solution? I believe that it is possible to identify mutually shared needs that can be realized to reach a common good. Compromise is essential for productive politics, because fulfilling mutual essential primal needs brings a feeling of security. It is critical that both parties feel their basic existence is ensured. Otherwise the result will be the majority will crush the minority. Or conversely, the opposite will occur: The few will rule the many.

The enslavement by excessive "we" thinking is represented by the totalitarianism of the masses. There is a loss of individual motivation and individual responsibility. The one is sacrificed on the altar of the many. The absence of personal freedom and personal identity is the end product of any state that is guided exclusively by the supremacy of the whole to the subjection of the single person. We have seen, and Europe and Asia have experienced, the brutal subjugation that is necessary to force uniformity.