The current situation with the Republican party demonstrates the counter-intuitive concept of "negative feedback" used by engineers of to prevent runaway systems.
Feedback (the positive kind) in a public address system results in a screaming howl that makes prople cover their ears, and can overload and destroy amplifiers. In audio equipment, a lifetime hobby of mine, I know that adding negative feedback to an amplifier circuit lowers total harmonic distortion and prevents runaway power surges in circuits. However, too much negative feedback makes the sound worse by destroying timing between high and low frequency sounds, so managing negative feedback is a delicate balance. Some very high-end audio amplifiers use no "added" negative feedback, and must be very, very carefully designed to sound good.
So what does this have to do with Republicans? The answer follows.
From the English Wikipedia:
Positive feedback is a type of feedback. Open systems (ecological, biological, social) contain many types of regulatory systems, among which are systems that involve positive feedback and its relative negative feedback. When a change of variable occurs in a system, the system responds. In the case of positive feedback the response of the system is to change that variable even more in the same direction. This has a de-stabilizing effect, so left unchecked, does not result in homeostasis. In some cases (if not controlled by negative feedback), a positive feedback loop can run out of control, and can result in the collapse of the system.
Positive and negative do not mean or imply desirability. The negative feedback loop tends to slow down a process, while the positive feedback loop tends to speed it up. Positive feedback is used in certain situations where rapid change is desirable.
The disastrous results of "positive feedback" are evident in the mindless, unthinking, unquestioning support by both Republican party members and other s sucked in by the propaganda and hype of Bush and the neoconservative-dominated cabal that he represents. Key members of the White House staff as well as leaders in the House and Senate are in deep trouble because there was insufficient "negative feedback" to hold them in check. Because of his needy personality and deep-seated psychological issues, I don't think Bush could have survived, much less thrived, in an environment where the "negative feedback" of skepticism and vocal criticism by the MSM and individuals were allowed flourish. Instead, only the "positive feedback" of absolute support and unquestioning following were tolerated. This allowed the top people in our government to become more and more arrogant and puffed up with "imperial hubris," until the entire system started self destructing.
In contrast, Republican presidents like Theodore Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower worried about, and warned us about, the dangers of too much influence by the corporations and the military on U.S. administration and policy. Roosevelt, in particular, was adamant about the dangers of unregulated corporations and monopolies. These men knew that an informed and thinking population of voters was important and necessary, and I'll bet that they were strong supporters of discussion, dissent, independent thinking with regard to politics and politicians. (Are there any Kossack presidential history buffs who can support this? Knowledgeable comments would be appreciated.) When presidents encourage the people of a nation to be informed and thinking, there is a much greater likelihood that those people actually will be informed.
Unfortunately, there is another modern complication that makes it difficult to have an informed populace, and that is the nature of our current mainstream media system, including corporate influence of the media via ownership of media outlets and the fine-tuned system of advertising - selling people things and ideas that are not always good for them. The power of persuasion of the MSM, especially television and radio, seems to be every bit as powerful as the silver-tongued oratory of famous leaders from the past. It astounds me that a twitchy, fumbling, bumbling buffoon like George W. Bush can rise to the highest office of our land! The MSM apparently has the ability to "amplify" the propaganda of Americans to a screaming level that drowns out logic and common sense. People simply stop thinking, and do not apply the "negative feedback" that is necessary to keep a system functioning as it should.
However, when an informed and skeptical population begins to refuse to accept the BS and hype that parties and politicians attempt to foist on us, and the MSM again begins to submit hard questions to politicians, "negative feedback" is being applied. This is an application of "negative feedback" and the "system" that is our government begins to respond by returning to a more stable state. In the current environment, voters are being converted to skepticism, and I believe that this is largely due to the influence of bloggers and there influence on the MSM to question Bush and other politicians in spite of the threat of being denied access to Bush and his cronies as punishment for refusing to avoid controversy and hard questioning. The internet, with it's dispersed and difficult to control "power of the people," is twisting the dial to turn up the negative feedback to control an out-of-control system.
I have a television, but for several years have had no connection to cable or an antenna - I currently only use it for watching DVD's. My primary source of news and political information is via the internet, with Dailykos, HuffingtonPost, MSM via links at Yahoonews.com, as well as reporters and commentators like Amy Goodman on public radio.
Thank you very much, Kos, Arianna, and all of the other bloggers who help keep us informed of what is really happening in our country and the world. Keep dialing up that negative feedback!