Political spectrum
From dKosopedia
The political spectrum is a concept for representing different political stances in relation to one another.
At its most basic, the political spectrum consists of a line or continuum from left to right, with varying shades of opinion in between.
Contents |
The left-right axis
The terms "left-wing" and "right-wing" originated in the years following the French Revolution of 1789, when the nobility were seated on the right side in parliament meeting, and representatives of the liberal bourgeoisie sat on the left. Thus, the term "right-wing" became associated with maintaining the status quo and protecting the interests of the established elites, like the nobility, clergy and the wealthy. The "left-wing" is associated with demanding progress and equality, although the extent can vary from liberals who seek change through economic reform (while retaining a market-based system) to socialists, who advocate the destruction of capitalism and collective ownership of the means of production.
The following is the mainstream left-to-right political spectrum. Included in this basic linear political spectrum are examples of western ideologies and where they would fit:
Conservatives like to claim that Fascists belong on the left side. Their ability to believe this is explained by the exclamation point political spectrum (see below).
Problems with the Political Spectrum
However, today's policy questions aren't quite the same as those of France more than 200 years ago. Some problems with the the left-to-right spectrum:
- It assumes a zero-sum outcome, that is, any policy change will help one side of the spectrum at the expense of the other. The political spectrum assumes that that there are no win-win policies, and therefore makes them "unthinkable".
- It encourages a divisive shoving match between two political tribes, and makes any collaboration on a win-win solution look like you're "giving ground" or "retreating".
- It assumes that the best thing is centrism, that is, a half-way-point between any disagreeing points. This actually encourages extremism because "the centre" can be moved, simply by having more extreme positions. For example: "I want you to to crown me King and give me 100 virgins for my harem. You want me to stay a commoner with no harem at all. The centrist solution is for me to settle for being a Duke and having a mere 50 virgins in my harem". Thus we see bizarre terms in the media like "moderate islamists".
- The terms change in different times and places. For example, is China moving to the left or right? The conservatives there are communists, while reformers in China tended to get smeared as "liberals" and "rightists" at the same time.
- Things get weirder historically. Today, if you own slaves, you're a total reactionary. Yet Thomas Jefferson did and was considered by the British to be a crazed anarchist. Standards change with time.
- The mainstream media use the political spectrum in a biased way. For example, communism is called "leftist", yet when was the last time you heard the mainstream media call islamists "conservatives" or "right wing"? They tend to get called "radicals" which historically has been used to describe leftists.
- It assumes all politics is disagreements over economic policy, ignoring the importance of social issues and freedoms.
- It also assumes that monopolies and interventions in the marketplace are always carried about by leftists to help the poor. Actually, most interference with markets is carried about by elites who can't resist the urge to change the rules to their advantage. Where does mercantilism fit on the political spectrum? What about anti-trust laws, and other interventions that defend capitalism from itself? What if all the corporations merged to form one megacorporation? What's the difference between a command economy and living in a "company town" where you can only shop at the "company store?"
- Movements found at both the far-left and far-right positions tend to have more in common with each other than they do with more moderate liberals or conservatives, since both extremes have a tendency towards radicalism and totalitarianism. The horseshoe theory (see below) contends that the left-right axis should be viewed in terms of a horseshoe curve, with the ends of the axis curving towards each other, rather than a straight line from one extreme to the other.
Alternatives to the Political Spectrum
The Political Compass
The Political Compass ads a second dimension, separating social issues from economic ones. Same problems as above, but now libertarians and "middle-American radicals" have their own spots.
The spectrum according to republicans: the Exclamation Point Political Spectrum
Republicans tend to have their own, never-explained spectrum, which I will call the "Exclamation point political spectrum." On top is Reagan, at the bottom of the line are Republicans-In-Name-Only. Under that is a small dot called "liberal", which is defined as anything outside the GOP tribe. This is why they can call Obama an atheist-islamist-communist-fascist-hippie-totalitarian all at once. Because all are foreign "others" outside the political tribe, there's no difference between them.
- ||| <---Saint Reagan
- ||| <---Mere mortal republicans
- ||| <--"RINOs": Republicans-in-name-only
- 0 <--"Liberals", defined as any outsider
The Horseshoe Theory
The horseshoe theory in political science stipulates that the far-left and far-right are more similar to each other in essentials than either are to the political center. Read the rationalwiki page, especially the comparison between the GOP and Russian Communist Party.
Authoritarians leaders and followers, VS everyone else
Bob Altemeyer divides authoritarians into leaders and followers:
Leaders tend to be aggressive and individualistic, while followers tend towards a somewhat fatalistic but principled acceptance as their status as cogs in a machine, generally condemning those not seen to be in conformance with the leaders' wishes. Read the whole book here.
Survive VS Thrive
Scott Alexander writes "My hypothesis is that rightism is what happens when you’re optimizing for surviving an unsafe environment, leftism is what happens when you’re optimized for thriving in a safe environment. (…)
I propose that the best way for leftists to get themselves in a rightist frame of mind is to imagine there is a zombie apocalypse tomorrow."
A more scientific (and less entertaining) look at this divide is half of the World Values Survey (see below).
World Values Survey
The World Values Survey moves into 2 dimensions, with "left" being at top right and "right" at bottom left. The 2 dimensions are:
1) Traditional values versus Secular-rational values and
2) Survival values versus Self-expression values.
Traditional values emphasize the importance of religion, parent-child ties, deference to authority and traditional family values. People who embrace these values also reject divorce, abortion, euthanasia and suicide. These societies have high levels of national pride and a nationalistic outlook.
Secular-rational values have the opposite preferences to the traditional values. These societies place less emphasis on religion, traditional family values and authority. Divorce, abortion, euthanasia and suicide are seen as relatively acceptable.
Survival values place emphasis on economic and physical security. It is linked with a relatively ethnocentric outlook and low levels of trust and tolerance.
Self-expression values give high priority to environmental protection, growing tolerance of foreigners, gays and lesbians and gender equality, and rising demands for participation in decision-making in economic and political life.
Looking at the end result, it looks like the best way to promote progressive politics is through economic growth and technological advancement, while preventing or limiting the destructiveness of wars, disasters, crime and suffering in general. (In short, what we're already doing.) It also suggests that we need to increase the perception of security and prosperity (see: Position: progressives should spread optimism and positivity).
It also suggests that it's a bad idea to think you can advance social liberalism while being indifferent to the working class. A society with lots of economically insecure people is not a fertile place for (your socially liberal pet cause here).
Modernism VS Romanticism
David Brin, in The Real Culture War, lists the beliefs of romanticism:
- Nostalgia for a tribal or ethnic or biblical or pastoral or aristocratic wisdom of old. Any "golden age" lies in the past. Human effort will never build one.
- Suspicion toward new technologies or social innovations, especially those that might empower masses to behave foolishly.
- Preference for hierarchies. The people are best guided by an elite class that's privy to The Truth. (Not those bad, opposing elites, of course. Only the philosopher kings from your side.)
- Enemies are strawmen caricatures, universally wrong, never worthy adversaries deserving negotiation.
- A preference for the subjective over the objective. Lefty postmodernists say that "everything is relative." Neoconservatives insist that mighty imperialists can "create our own reality."
- Symbols matter! Either as trappings of empire or emblems of in-your-face defiance.
- Romantics insist that their core ideology is timeless. From Islamic jihadists to Revelation apocalypts to Liberal political-correctness police, all claim tomorrow's children should believe the same explicit Truth.
(…) alienation against tomorrow can span any spectrum, from ignorance to intelligencia, from postmodern left to neocon right. (..) The real issue is confidence in human ability and common sense. The rift is about whether to believe in the modern world(..)'
It's part of a series, The Radical Notion of Modernism, and it's really worth reading the whole thing.
War-Mode VS Peace-Mode
Combine the character traits seen in authoritarian followers and the survival values from the World Values Survey, and the policy choices of the zombie survivors in Survive VS Thrive. Add the fact that thought is being lead around by emotion, resulting in the beliefs of romanticism.
Now, account for the fact that people, and entire cultures can turn on a dime. You saw this on 9/11. It also happened the other way with German and Japan after WW2, who went from shocking the world with as-yet-unimagined barbarities, to the among the most progressive and emulation-worthy civilizations in all of history.
Now think of your own attitudes, and how they changed over time. When you were an insecure adolescent, you probably had some "right-wing" traits - cliquishness, homophobia, a thuggish, blustering form of presentation, or a respect for those who did. At the peak of our strength and confidence we tend to be liberal, then as we age anxiety increases, and we become a little bit more conservative. Oh, and by some coincidence people become more conservative the moment they get into the non-stop anxiety-fest that is parenting.
Consider your attitudes when you're angry. Anger is a primeval instinct for dealing with threats. It's when your body is getting ready to club something to death, and then your mind gets to work coming up with excuses. It works in groups too, and if you can look past the flags and the fancy rhetoric it hasn't changed since Cave 1 decided to club the crap out of Cave 2.
I propose that human nature has two "modes", a "war-mode" optimized for physical and cultural survival in brutal times, and a "peace-mode", optimized for peace and prosperity.
If things seem safe enough, our personalities gear themselves for diplomacy, economic and technological growth, and just plain living better. When threatened, by violence or unemployment, our personalities enter "war mode", which focuses on the traits that make us better (in the short term) at making war: unity, unquestioning obedience, immunity to doubt, willingness to violently lash out at strangers on command, lack of pity for casualities, generosity and hard work for the in-group.
More on this in Essay: Human nature has a war mode and a peace mode
References
- This article uses material from the RationalWiki article "Political Spectrum" and Bob Altemeyer. Unless this article is re-written from scratch it must include this citation
- This article uses material from the Wikipedia article "World Values Survey ". Unless this article is re-written from scratch it must include this citation (See Wikipedia:Copyrights).
![[Main Page]](../../../../upload/banner-blue-135.jpg)