Talk:Political spectrum/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I noticed that the entire Vosem Chart was deleted. This includes the Vosem Chart article as well as the link from this page. I missed the delete debate, so what happened?

• I'm not sure what happens to VfD debates once they are closed. Does anyone else know?
• To the anonymous person who posted this (1) Please add questions at the bottom of the page, not the top and (2) please don't edit out earlier questions, even your own. Use strikethrough if you need to change them. Especially as an anonymous participant, there is no way for anyone else to know whether you are editing your own comments or some other anonymous participant's (yet another advantage of actually getting an account).

Jmabel 01:43, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, and I now have an account. I also have a question lower down.

Harvestdancer

Since this space is already discussing Vosem, I'll use it as such. Anyway, back to the Vosem Chart issue. While it is of very limited publication, coming form one sourse (a Kuro5hin article) doees not it being different merit it a one-liner at the end of the Multi-axis models section? I agree with a whole article on it being deleted, but it could occupy a niche like the Friesian model, a one sentence reference and an external link. Comments? Harvestdancer 18:52, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)Harvestdancer

Tim, this makes a good attempt to be fair but it overlooks a couple key points. There are a variety of political spectra, but most people have a clear concept of the one to which "left" and "right" refer. In fact, if you look at the one presented by the advocates for self-government, you will notice that the horizontal axis is the same left-right spectrum everyone else uses. So while people may debate over the precise definition of that axis, its existence is not nearly so controversial.

The other thing is that the particular diagram to which you refer is fairly non-discriminatory. Inasmuchas it can't distinguish between libertarianism and anarchism - one of which has policies much like capitalism, one of which has policies much like socialism - and again between fascism and marxism. In short, they have identified different ideologies by pinching the diagram off into a diamond, which is probably more for the purposes of popularizing libertarianism (something the site obviously tries to do) then accuracy. -- JoshuaGrosse

Joshua - The two axes are 'personal self-government' and 'economic self-government'. Which is the horizontal axis?

Economic self-government: the one that showed up as horizontal on the chart, of course. :)

But personal self-government is equally horizontal on the chart. The axes lie parallel like two AA batteries in a walkman: The positive next to the others negative.

The diagram can be represented like this: ++ +- -+ --

Oh...I see what they're doing. In that case the corners of the graph are grossly mislabeled - a completely totalitarian government is authoritarian whether or not they allow a free market. But all in all, it's the square is suggested, only tilted in a non-standard way. Usually left-right is portrayed as an economic spectrum. I'm very sorry for the confusion. I still say the source is biased, though. -- JoshuaGrosse

Also - I do not agree that there is similarity between socialism and anarchism. As I would define them, socialism attempts to maintain social order with political institutions, and without cultural or economic institutions. Anarchism seeks to maintain social order with economic and cultural institutions, and without political institutions. As they are conventionally understood, socialism means more government, anarchism no government. So even if you don't like my definition, common usage place these two at opposite extremes.

Just as libertarian is usually applied in a narrow sense to exclude libertarian socialists (~anarcho-syndicalists), it seems anarchism is usually applied in a narrow sense to exclude anarcho-capitalists (~free market libertarians). It's in this sense that I was using the term. Obviously anarcho-syndicalism has strong ties to socialism and free market libertarianism has strong ties to capitalism, but the two systems aren't distinguished on the diamond. A square or circle would be much better in terms of actually representing ideologies.

Other than those, though, I don't really have any complaints other than perhaps a slight editorial tone (fear the future and wish to control it). And, of course, none of this is meant as negative criticism, my being too uncertain to try writing political articles myself. :) -- JoshuaGrosse

Tim, you wrote:

In modern Western countries, the spectrum is usually defined along an axis of conservatism ("the right") versus socialism ("the left", called liberalism in the United States).

I think we need to find a better word for The Right than "conservatism" because that means, after all, something quite different in countries where the tradition for decades has been socialism. Perhaps there isn't a single word--perhaps it's simply "support for traditional values and some support for capitalism."

Equating liberalism with socialism is ridiculous. That is like equating conservatism with fundamentalist theocracy, which is only the "Neo" or "compassionate" branch. There aren't many liberal socialists nowadays.

The bounds of "the Right" strain to encompass big-business military-industrial types as well as radical or populist nationalists who may hate corporations as much as they hate "liberals".

The matter of whether the Right "supports capitalism", too, can be questioned: to the present rightist American regime, for instance, "supporting capitalism" entails subsidies and military support for business, whereas to the free-market capitalist these represent the destruction of capitalism just as much as nationalization of factories would. --FOo

It's a religious crusade, like fascism; capitalism just happens to be where the money and power is. That is the "Neo" or "compassionate" branch now in power. The others have mixed motives, but support for the corporate state is the standard for the mainstream Right and Left in the US due to the two-party system and private campaign financing. Monopoly is the natural result of free market capitalism in many sectors, so whether they are "saving" or "destroying" capitalism is a matter of interpretation. (BTW, I think regulated capitalism is the best system, just regulated to favor generally free markets with decent labor and environmental standards rather than oligopolies and destructive subsidies.)

Fairandbalanced 01:57, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

N8chz -- I am not sure that the "dove/hawk" distinction is the same that I was trying to make regarding political violence. I was thinking more of the "Gandhi/Arafat" axis: not should our nation use war to enforce its policies abroad? but rather should our party use violence to get what it wants domestically?

I think both are useful, though the words "pacifist" and "militant" are too fuzzy to clarify between them. (For one thing, they aren't even really opposites. A pacifist is someone who rejects violence for any purpose, but a militant isn't someone for whom violence is the first answer -- it's someone who believes political violence has become necessary in the present situation.)

For the "dove/hawk" distinction regarding aggression abroad, I can't think of any good "formal" words. Those two are good, though. --FOo

• The "right" is not always in favour of the free-market. Need to make clear that all the possible left/right divisions are only ever points of view.

A couple points of concern. One, the association of Liberalism with Socialism isn't particularly accurate nor unbiased. United States Liberalism does not call for government control of most industries.

Second and more broadly, I think the article gives far too much weight to the libertarian idea of a spectrum. It's another valid spectrum, of course, but the weight of text given to it gives it more validity than the others, which does not particularly represent the cultural importance of that idea in US, or certainly Western, politics. -User:Gacohen

The Libertarian two-axis system, that is to say the 'World's Smallest Political Quiz", currently gets two paragraphs. The mainstream left-right spectrum gets three paragraphs, including the historical one; most of the other spectra get one paragraph. Please feel free to expand upon any of them.

To clarify, the PoliticalCompass.org two-axis system is not the same as the Libertarian WSPQ -- its axes are 45 degrees off, and it is not intended as a rhetorical tool for libertarianism or any other particular political system. It does use the term "libertarian", but the authors' analysis suggests that they believe there is a strong correlation between pro-liberty and leftist views (and between pro-authoritarian and rightist views), which most libertarians would disagree with. --FOo

The "Historical Origin" is questionable, since the "first estate" was not the nobility -- it was the Church. The nobility were the second estate. Further, I was under the impression that the terms "left" and "right" dated to after the Revolution, with the revolutionaries to the left and the counter-revolutionaries to the right. --FOo

I think the article should cite who divided up the political spectrum in America as follows, because it bears no resemblance to what I read in the newspapers and see and TV every day:

There are different opinions about what is actually being measured along this axis:

• Whether the state should prioritize equality(left) or liberty(right).
• Whether the government's involvement with the economy should be *interventionist(left) or laissez-faire(right).
• Whether Church and State should be separated(left) or integrated(right).
• Fair outcomes(left) versus fair processes(right)

Is this the Libertarian view of the political spectrum, or what?

(cutting in) It's a listing of a number of (conflicting) opinions about the left-right spectrum. in fact, Libertarians tend to view policies using a 2D model, and reject the 1D model as too simplistic. Martin

I thought in America the left-right spectrum was mostly the "liberal left" agenda vs. the "conservative right" agenda. That is, each side has a whole laundry list of things it wants, and I think they should be listed specifically first, before venturing into an analysis that tries to break down these positions into "principles" of some sort.

(cutting in) In America the left-right spectrum is probably commonly seen as Left=Democrats, Right=Republicans. In the UK the left-right spectrum is commonly seen as Left=Labour, Right=Conservatives. I'm sure similar things could be said about most countries with a two party system, but that doesn't do much to give a world view... Martin

Also, I don't think it's correct that conservatives don't care about "outcomes", as the article currently characterizes them. So it would be more neutral to say that Mr. X says that liberals care about outcomes while...

--Uncle Ed 19:15 Apr 2, 2003 (UTC)

You're making two assumptions here:

• that conservatives are "right wing"
• that "fair outcomes versus fair processes" is correct.

Both these assumptions are not supported by the article, which clearly lists "fair outcomes versus fair processes" as an opinion, and does not state that conservatives are right wing. Martin

Some comments on the two-axis section:

• I'm not sure why so much of this section focuses on quizes. The point of this article should be to describe the different systems, not to mention every site's quiz that you can take. Everything above the "Nolan Chart" paragraph is presenting varioius quizes about the Nolan Chart, before actually describing the Nolan Chart itself. I think we need to rework this section to present the Nolan Chart, and then just a mention of the various quizes that address it.

• Wouldn't left-right form a diagonal line, rather than an arc, across the Nolan Chart?

• Back to the quizes - why is it "unfortunate" that no quiz exists for the Pournelle model? Why not just describe it?

• (As a side note, what's up with the Political Compass quiz? It seems a little weird. For example "Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all" and "Astrology accurately explains many things" What's that have to do with anything?)

Axlrosen 18:29, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I won't speak to the first two, but on the last one, the designers of that quiz do note that some of the questions are intended to draw out the respondent's similarity of views to particular political figures and movements. I can't say exactly what they were thinking on those two questions.

However, a disdain for abstract or non-representational art is sometimes thought of as conservative or reactionary -- and both Nazism and Stalinism officially opposed abstract art. As for the astrology question, I have no idea -- favoring astrology could be considered anti-rationalist and hence anti-liberal or it could be considered "new age" and hence likely socialist. --FOo 01:22, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by the latest edits by Wiwaxia:

• Can you integrate the terms "stasism" and "dynamism" into their definitions that follow, so that it's clear which is which? It seems like you've listed them in reverse order than their definitions appear.

• The "Diversity" axis is now multiculturalism vs. nationalism vs. movements like Afrocentrism. Is this supposed to be a single straight-line continuum? What exactly are "movements like Afrocentrism", isn't that an example of nationalism?

• Not sure I understand the bottom part of the Pournelle chart, can you explain it a little better? Are all fascists and anarchists examples of this, or just some of them?

Axlrosen 21:56, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The entry for defining ethnic nationalism versus multiculturalism reads "Diversity: multiculturalism (the nation should represent a diversity of cultural ideas) vs. ethnic nationalism (the nation should represent the dominant ethnic group)". Unless they live in Africa (which most of them don't), Afrocentrists are not supporting the dominant ethnic group. This is a sort of countercultural coercion, a belief that there should be a single ethnic group or culture represented by the ideals the government and political structure favors, but that that group should in this case be people of Sub-Saharan African descent. Even Afrocentrists in the West Indies push their Afrocentrism on a world basis, not to the government of Jamaica where they already represent a majority. Therefore perhaps the sequence should now move in a straight line from nationalism to multiculturalism to movements like Afrocentrism, with multiculturalism in the middle seen as a fulcral "balance". Wiwaxia 23:05, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Afrocentrism as it is described on that page seems to be chiefly a view towards history. Are you talking about Black nationalism? If so, I think it may need to extend to a different axis. I intended the multiculturalism axis to distinguish polities and views which explicitly attempt to include many ethnic and cultural heritages in the nation, and those which tie national identity closely to ethnic or cultural identity. An example of the former might be Canada, or the U.S. on a good day. Nasty examples of the latter might be Nazi Germany or Serbia, or the desires of the Ku Klux Klan for the United States. More benign "ethnic nationalist" policies might be France's language defensiveness, Israel's immigrations policies, or many things about Japan.

If a purported "Afrocentric" or "Black nationalist" group or partisan advocates nationhood that is tied to a single political idea of black ethnicity, then on this particular axis it is being ethnic-nationalist, not multiculturalist. The fact that it is doing so for a sometime-oppressed ethnic group doesn't change it. I don't mean this as an accusation of "reverse racism" but as a simple description. Multicultural doesn't just mean "not white" -- you can't have multiculturalism without the multi.

BTW, it wasn't my intention to imply that the multicultural end of the axis is "good" and the other "bad". There are evil forms of ethnic nationalism (such as genocide, ghettoization, and so forth) as well as benign ones (like France's language policies). Likewise, there are harmful forms of multiculturalism, such as the rift between secular and Muslim law that is presently causing such strife in Nigeria. --FOo 02:35, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

So if you don't like including Black Nationalism as a third point on the line, either on an end opposite to nationalism or with multiculturalism as the other extreme, then where can it go? It can't be classified under "nationalism" because Blacks aren't the dominant ethnic group. And you already noted that you don't like placing Black Nationalism as a subcategory of multiculturalism (after all, it wouldn't be multiculturalism if there were only one ethnic group given state approval). So ruling out including it in either of the two existing categories or creating a third category, where does Black Nationalism go? Wiwaxia 12:22, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Wiwaxia, I agree with Fubar, Afrocentrism or Black Nationalism seems very similar to or a subset of nationalism (though perhaps the definiton of "nationalism" in the article needs to be expanded). Plus, even if we kept it, it needs a better name than "movements like Afrocentrism". I'm going to delete it, but feel free to fix it up if you think it's still viable.

How about my question on the Pournelle chart? Can you fix that part up so it clearer?

Axlrosen 21:33, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

"and those at the bottom reduced to blind, celebratory attachment to their ideology for its own sake -- the fascist who will now do anything to celebrate "greatness", the anarchist given to tossing bombs around for the fun of it" <--- Not all anarchists and fascists, only those who fit this description

I removed this line from the explanation of left vs. right:

• "How much participation an individual should have, also known as Positive Liberty, first detailed by Isaiah Berlin."

After reading the Positive Liberty page, this doesn't sound like left vs. right but libertarianism vs. authoritarianism. So if anything it belongs in the Alternative Spectra list. But I'm not sure how to phrase it. It's not Negative Liberty vs. Positive Liberty, because almost everyone is for Negative Liberties. It's more like whether Positive Liberties should exist or not.

Also, according to the Positive Liberty page, "how much participation an individual should have" is an alternate and controversial definition, not the main feature of Positive Liberty.

-- Maybe Positive Liberty is poorly defined, but it is certinaly worth a mention. Negative Liberty is things that the Government doesn't stop you from doing, Positive Liberty is where the Government actively allows you to do something. So a belief in Positive Liberty means that a Government would support welfare, a National Health service, etc. These are things that the right (with the acception of very left-wing paternalistic conservatives (who support welfare for a different reason)) supports.

Slizor.

Under the various characterizations of left versus right User:Slizor's recent edit removed:

• Whether the government should be secular and separate itself from religious beliefs (left) or should take a stance of religious morality (right).
• Fair outcomes (left) versus fair processes (right)
• Whether one embraces change (left) or prefers rigorous justification for change (right). This was proposed by Eric Hoffer.
• Whether human nature and society is malleable (left) or fixed (right). This was proposed by Thomas Sowell

Replacing these with:

• Whether their opinion on human nature is broadly optimistic (left) or pessimistic (right).

I don't have any real problem with the addition (although I would argue that this would be a contingent characteristic of leftists and rightists, not what would characterize someone as such: for example, Ronald Reagan seems to have been essentially optimistic bout human nature, but that does not make him a man of the left). However, I think the deletions are entirely unjustified. In particular, the views of Hoffer and Sowell seem to deserve mention simply becuase of whose views they are. As for the one on religion, it's arguable, and I'd let go of that if there is no consensus to restore it (after all, the words "religious" and "secular" are perfectly good words, why confuse the matter by saying that "right" and "left" are somehow their stalking horses). I think the "Fair outcomes (left) versus fair processes (right)" is entirely justifiable: Look at the rhetoric of the fight over Affirmative Action in the US.

In short, unless someone states a strong case to the contrary, I plan to restore the Hoffer, Sowell, and outcomes/processes bullet points in about 24 hours. I don't want an edit war here, so please let's talk if you have a problem with that. -- Jmabel 01:15, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Why the hell did our "scissor" delete those? This deletion leads to there being less, rather than more, in the article. I'm with you all the way, Jmabel. Wiwaxia 05:11, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have restored the cut content, except for the one on religion, which (as explained above) I think was appropriate to delete. -- Jmabel 18:06, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I view them as incorrect, thus I cut them. Surely you would want a shorter article that is more accurate then a vague long one?

As for the points I removed.

"Fair outcome versus fair processes" - I object to this from the leftist view that Capitalism (which rightists support) has distinctly unfair processes and that a fair outcome is a result of the process itself being fair. To use the example of Affirmative Action is unfair as it is a centerist, modern Liberal idea, not one of the left.

The Hoffer point I do feel as wrong (certianly the Thatcher Government in the UK was staunchly in favour of change, it is only really Traditional Conservatives who want rigourous justification for change. However I will accept the view just on the basis of who they are. I will also accept the Sowell one, although disagree on the point that people on the right think society is "fixed".

Slizor

I agree with your opinion that Hoffer and Sowell are wrong about what "left" and "right" mean in common discourse, but reread the context. This is not even an article about Left-right politics (q.v.)! This is an article about different views of the political spectrum. Note that the list is introduced by, "There are various different opinions about what is actually being measured along this axis." I would say that both of these prominent figures chose to look at a different political axis than the one usually termed "left-right" and each hijacked those terms for their purpose. Note that the article then goes on to talk about other (differently designated) spectra.

It is quite possible that all of this could be clearer in the article (to which I have contributed a little, but I did not write the sentences in question). However, I have no doubt that Hoffer and Sowell's respective views of the political spectrum merit mention in an encyclopedia article on political spectrum. I think it would be appropriate to make a case that they were really each proposing alternative spectra and that their use of the words "left" and "right" was arbitrary and misleading. It was not, however, lightly dismissable.

By the way, on Thatcher, I don't know if you ever have read Alexander Cockburn on Thatcher. Cockburn ought to be "left" enough for anyone (and, I suppose, too "left" for most). Needless to say, he didn't like Thatcher any better than most of us lefties, but he made an interesting case that, besides her obvious anti-socialist views (taking socialism in its absolutely broadest sense, so that it includes pretty much all ameliorative social programs), she was equally resolute in her demolition of vestiges of British feudalism. Basically, his case was that she was simultaneously completing (or strongly continuing) Britain's slow bourgeios revolution, while simultaneously rolling back everything (or all she could) that went beyond that.

-- Jmabel 07:34, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

A recent edit by User:Fairandbalanced changed:

"(In the United States, the term Liberalism refers to a wide range of left-of-center politics; in Europe, this same term refers to a wide range of center-right politics.)"

to

"In North America and Europe, the term Liberalism refers to a wide range of center-left political viewpoints."

Certainly "the United States" (my wording) was too narrow, because Canadian liberals are center-left; as for substituting "North American" rather than "the United States and Canada", I honestly don't know how the term is used in Mexico. I suspect it is not heavily used there, or I would probably know. I'm not sure: in a context like this, do most people read "North American" as including or excluding Mexico? I suppose British "Liberals" are also center-left; I gather, though, that Australian "Liberals" are rather on the right, so we can't say "English-speaking world"...

More important, though, I believe that most European "Liberal" parties are center-right. I'm pretty comfortable saying that about Germany and I'd be surprised if it were otherwise in the Netherlands or Belgium. Could someone who knows Continental European politics please weigh in? The point of my sentence (which I now see wasn't strictly accurate) was that there are parts of the world where "Liberal" means center-left and parts where it means center right; also that North American (US and Canadian) Liberalism is a very different matter than European Liberalism. Again, my sentence was not on the mark, but I want to get these points into that paragraph or thereabouts. I also want to have my facts in a row before I re-edit.

Fairandbalanced, do you have any further thoughts on this now that I've clarified what I was driving at?

-- Jmabel 07:55, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

My idea was to limit the definition to English-language countries because no translation is perfect. So far it appears the left-handed version applies in the North Hemisphere, the right-handed version in the South. :^) Fairandbalanced 21:25, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm still unhappy with the dominance of the Nolan chart. I certainly feel there should be less on this POV (and very biased) chart. Slizor 10:17, 2004 Mar 19 (UTC)

Maybe you can move some of the juice on this chart into the Nolan chart article then. Wiwaxia 04:56, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The two recent additions to the left-right dichotomy seem to me to be pretty useless:

• Whether the state should prioritize security (right) or liberty (left).
• Whether the government's involvement with moral issues should be interventionist(right) or minimal (left).

Neither has any attribution as to who has characterized left and right as meaning this, and both seem absurd in terms of the original use during the French Revolution: there were advocates of both of these positions on both the left and right. To state what should be obvious, Robespierre -- certainly a paragidmatic leftist -- was no friend of individual liberty over national security, nor did he keep the government out of the realm of morality (consider the Cult of the Divine Being).

All of this is better discussed at Left-Right politics. I'd really rather see this section reduced and cross referenced to where the topic is more seriously engaged. Does anyone have a problem with that? -- Jmabel 18:31, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

As wikipedia defines it, authoritarianism describes "a state which enforces strong and sometimes oppressive measures against the population". Here it used to describe the opposite of a libertarian. I fall into that side of the spectrum, supporting liberal economics but being somewhat socially conservative. However, I don't advocate anything not espoused by either the Democrats or Republicans, certainly not strong or oppressive measures aginst the population, and nowhere near what was done by regimes known as authoritarian. Could the term be changed to something more accurate, less biased, such as the original 'populist', or the more recent 'communitarian'? -juan, 9:13 am, 6/18

Coming from a very different politics than Juan, I would have to agree that "communitarian" is far less contentious than "authoritarian" as an antithesis to "libertarian". Either we need a discussion as to how each could be seen as an antithesis, or we should simply go with "communitarian". Almost everyone who believes in liberal democracy would like to see him/herself as the opposite of an authoritarian, not just the libertarians. If this is at all confusing (it may be: "communitarian" is a less common term), I'll gladly expand on it, just let me know. -- Jmabel 17:31, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

Does anybody else think

• Whether the government should take care of issues such as health care and retirement benefits (left), or whether individuals should be left to their own devices on such issues (right).

is already covered by

• Whether the government's involvement with the economy should be interventionist (left) or laissez-faire (right).

and

• Support for the economic interests of the poor (left) or the rich (right).

or is it just me? Harvestdancer

Agree completely. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:26, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Disagree partially, there is no reason to associate aversion to government "provided" health care and retirement as an economic interest of the poor or rich issue. The terms right and left are explicitly overloaded here. Poor persons through out history have often refused not only the public dole but voluntary handouts, preferring an ethic of work and self sufficiency. Even advocates for the poor, such as true international socialists have opposed luxurious benefits for the "poor" in countries like the US or northern europe, while hundreds or thousands could be saved in the third would for the cost of one heart bypass or kidney bypass. --Silverback 21:18, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)