Yeah, but can he hit?

We've already noted that, by virtue of being a culture that rewards risk taking, we're blessed with risk management tools and sensibilities that, to a great degree, inoculate us against totalitarian ideologies.

So what went wrong? How did the anti-globalization movement of a decade or two ago, which may have been reactionary but was at least rooted in a healthy skepticism about the nature of huge and opaque institutions, become today's paranoid anti-americanism? How do the good instincts that freedom tends to breed become confused?

The answer, or at least part of it, can be discussed with the help of something called the Sharpe ratio. I'm sticking with financial and risk management terms because they're so good at capturing social as well as market processes.

The Sharpe ratio is a ratio that measures the volatility of a series. I won't get into the math, but what it tells us in general is how well a series adheres to its own internal trend. If you have an economy that is being managed to yield 3% growth, you want that number, not 4% and not 2%. The Sharpe ratio, by measuring the stability of the series, is therefore also a measure of the refinement of the processes by which your goals are sought.

The problem, however, is that more highly refined and stable processes are more fragile when they do break down. They are less robust. In this way, refinement can be self defeating, and that is something that western societies are currently experiencing.

Just as the fed stands at the sidelines of the economy, tinkering with the few tools at its disposal in a constant effort to manage its way toward stable growth, there are similar processes that unfold in political and social arenas. Political managers, like money managers, want stability and predictability, the more the better. As a consequence they do their best to control themselves as well as us, so that everybody is always on point and on message. We do the same to them by applying normative pressures.

The polarization in national politics today is a natural result of an increasingly sophisticated political environment, filled with managed expectations and talking points. These tools were supposed to produce a more stable politics, but they really only create an illusion of stability within a narrow range.

Just beyond that range, there's nothing but a sheer cliff. The political horizon is amazingly close by, since to function politically today all you have to do is be able to stick your finger in either one nostril or the other. Once you've done that, the rest of us know what side you're on, and that's all we want to know about you anyway. As a result, everybody can pitch but nobody can hit. Everybody is a well practiced critic of the other side, but real thought is scarce. Outside the comfort zone of political identity, there's an abyss of fear and uncertainty. This helps to explain why raw emotions, hate and hero worship, are such a common feature of the political landscape now. People feel lost and helpless and they want to know who is going to save them, or at least who to blame.

The left is especially vulnerable. The key goals of the progressive movement have long ago been achieved and adopted universally. As a result, they're caught in a freefall of process and form without substance. The political tools that govern the relationship between politicians and their constituents are operating at full strength, but there's no real life purpose to guide the process and provide a reality check.

But everybody is vulnerable to some degree. To the ears of the young, in particular, a haunting moan and clatter is all they hear of political debate in America. Real debate has been managed into such oblivion that politicians themselves act surprised when it occasionally crops up. By comparison, a voice like that of Islam is clear and strong. Even if your place in the Islamic story is death or dhimmitude, at least there is a story. And behind that story, a mesmerizing and terrifying presence. You bet they have our kids attention.

These are the dangers of refinement, efficiency and overcooked risk management. They lead to stability and predictability, which are desired, but at the cost of narrowness and fragility.

So let's re-ask the opening question. How do the good instincts that freedom tends to breed become confused?