Is the "Left to Right" political spectrum an accurate way to look at politics?

JoeMorgue

Self Employed , Remittance Man
JoeMorgue
Joined
Nov 15, 2009
Messages
48,325
Location
Florida
Is the "Left to Right" political spectrum an accurate way to look at politics?

Short version; see title.

To expand somewhat. In common parlance it is common to place people's political opinions on a spectrum from the Left (here in the States usually representing Liberalism and the Democratic Party) and the Right (here in the States usually representing Conservatism and the Republican Party).

Are we as a society making political discussions more difficult because of that?

*Notes. I'm going to be using current United States terms as they are used "person on the street" level. I'm aware that in other countries these terms vary and that I'm not necessarily following the "technical" definition of some of these terms.

Some issues I see.

1. The tendency to lump Left/Liberal/Democratic Party and Right/Conservtive/Republican Party into singular entities which isn't at all accurate.

2. A base tendency to force us into Us V Them thinking and all the inane B.S. political argumentatives that comes with that.

3. The tendency to see political victories as winner take all, first past the post things.
 
d09c04b5039c2d9d5004f3a059c463bb.jpg


This signature is intended to irritate people.
 
JoeBentley said:
Short version; see title.

To expand somewhat. In common parlance it is common to place people's political opinions on a spectrum from the Left (here in the States usually representing Liberalism and the Democratic Party) and the Right (here in the States usually representing Conservatism and the Republican Party).

Are we as a society making political discussions more difficult because of that?

*Notes. I'm going to be using current United States terms as they are used "person on the street" level. I'm aware that in other countries these terms vary and that I'm not necessarily following the "technical" definition of some of these terms.

Some issues I see.
1. The tendency to lump Left/Liberal/Democratic Party and Right/Conservtive/Republican Party into singular entities which isn't at all accurate.

2. A base tendency to force us into Us V Them thinking and all the inane B.S. political argumentatives that comes with that.

3. The tendency to see political victories as winner take all, first past the post things.
Click to expand...

Good post. After a long hiatus away from this forum, I was shocked to see the same level of discourse here that I see on most sports forums that I frequent. In fact, I'd argue its worse but maybe that's because I expect better of this place. It seems that anyones critical faculties go AWOL when it comes to religion and politics. It's troubling to see that political ideology has become fundamentalist in nature...and truthfully I'm seeing it more out of the left.
 
Last edited:
JoeBentley said:
Short version; see title.

To expand somewhat. In common parlance it is common to place people's political opinions on a spectrum from the Left (here in the States usually representing Liberalism and the Democratic Party) and the Right (here in the States usually representing Conservatism and the Republican Party).

Are we as a society making political discussions more difficult because of that?

*Notes. I'm going to be using current United States terms as they are used "person on the street" level. I'm aware that in other countries these terms vary and that I'm not necessarily following the "technical" definition of some of these terms.

Some issues I see.

1. The tendency to lump Left/Liberal/Democratic Party and Right/Conservtive/Republican Party into singular entities which isn't at all accurate.

2. A base tendency to force us into Us V Them thinking and all the inane B.S. political argumentatives that comes with that.

3. The tendency to see political victories as winner take all, first past the post things.
Click to expand...

Mathematically speaking (by correlating Y/N voting records of the elected officials in the national House and Senate): One dimension is enough.

At least, most of the time. On some specific issues a second dimension is required, but normally that second dimension is overkill.

However, even though you used the work "spectrum" in your description, what you seem to wanting to ask, rather than "is a left-right spectrum enough to categorize people?", is "is a left-right dichotomy enough to categorize people?". Sadly, the answer to that, at least for Congress, is still yes-ish, and according to the data, the divide between the sides is getting wider every session.

Now, the question still remains: is The US Congress reflective of the population as a while, or is it warped by the electoral process: Winner take all votes, sound byte slogans, 24-hour news cycle, facts are for pussies.
 
Last edited:
The left-right spectrum is useful for analyzing some areas of politics. Politics has also been compared to a ring, where the further left one gets, the closer one's politics get to those on the extreme right. The ring is useful at times. Apathoid's graphic is of course the "piece of paper," where there are four corners and one center. Again, useful at times.

Obviously the problem is that politics isn't really a left-right line, or a ring, or a piece of paper. They are imperfect metaphors for a much more complex system; so much more complex that trying to describe it perfectly is a fool's game.

But for most US purposes left-right works fine. In a way, that's one of the functions of the two-party system--to ensure that there is a choice between two candidates who fit between the parties' respective marker beacons.
 
Beady said:
[qimg]https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20170625/d09c04b5039c2d9d5004f3a059c463bb.jpg[/qimg]
Click to expand...

I just realized, looking at that graphic, that I've been mentally picturing it backwards all these years. Probably because the original "left/right" stuff was from the French Revolution, and referred to the chamber seating arrangements...and I think it was used as stage left and stage right, from the point of view of the person facing the seated. Hence the Leftists would be sitting on the right side of the room and the Rightists on the left side of the room...and then I realized that whole setup is as good a metaphor for politics as any. Everybody's so sure of where they are because they never stop for a moment to consider anybody else's point of view.
 
I can't say anything about other countries, but in mine, it's only one of the minor spectra, getting talked about as if it were the hugest and most dominant one. What's really the most important spectrum is the one from populists (trying to do what's best for the most people) and money-grabbing corrupt insider corporate/machine politicians (serving only themselves). People vote for whoever appears to be most populist, regardless of whether that's a liberal populist or a conservative populist.
 
GodMark2 said:
Mathematically speaking (by correlating Y/N voting records of the elected officials in the national House and Senate): One dimension is enough.

At least, most of the time. On some specific issues a second dimension is required, but normally that second dimension is overkill.

However, even though you used the work "spectrum" in your description, what you seem to wanting to ask, rather than "is a left-right spectrum enough to categorize people?", is "is a left-right dichotomy enough to categorize people?". Sadly, the answer to that, at least for Congress, is still yes-ish, and according to the data, the divide between the sides is getting wider every session.

Now, the question still remains: is The US Congress reflective of the population as a while, or is it warped by the electoral process: Winner take all votes, sound byte slogans, 24-hour news cycle, facts are for pussies.
Click to expand...

Fascinating. Also turned my relaxed morning coffee into intense wiki reading on MDS. Still shaken from the experience. Hmmm, left-right differences on economic matters are what counts most. That's a complex issue, so I wonder if this means there isn't some salient item that drives the divide, say, that of paying taxes.

Put a warning sign on your next information-driven post, Jesus!
 
Liberalism is neither right nor left according to the usual definitions. And liberalism is not the same as libertarianism. So that immediately adds another dimension that can't be captured by a single left right axis.
 
Of course complex socio-economic and political thoughts can be expressed as a point in a single dimension What could possibly be divisive about that?
 
The 2-d model is more useful for any kind of meaningful discussion.

The two party system in the USA lends itself to a "us vs them" two way debate that shuts down complex conversations.
 
3point14 said:
Of course complex socio-economic and political thoughts can be expressed as a point in a single dimension What could possibly be divisive about that?
Click to expand...

Actually, I thought the holographic universe was based on reducing a 3D (4D?) coordinate system to two dimensions... or something like that. Been a long time, and I didn't get that stuff the first time I heard it, either.

At any rate, take any set of points in a 2D or 3D space, then list the xyz coordinates of the first point in that order, then take the next point and jot its coordinates down, and so on. This way, you can make a list in one dimension that maps all three spatial coordinates retaining all information.... Nevertheless, Godmark2 is who threw the curve ball and needs to flesh out his intriguing and utterly maddening post.

Labcoats, sheesh.:sulk:
 
Last edited:
Honestly I think even a multi-point spectrum is confining.

"Politics" is a broad term that comprises multiple opinions about how to (and whether or not to) handle a bunch of different things.

I think it is less about any "spectrum" and more the sad fact that once labels get applied to everything you no longer have to argue, you can just name call. Under the context of "a spectrum" no matter how many axis we put on it it becomes impossible to just have a simple opinion.

We've all been there. Once you say you have one of the big talking point opinions that Democrats or Republicans (or Libertarians or Socialists or Greens or whatever if the person you are arguing with even admits they exist) tend to have that's it, the argument is done. The discussions at that point will and forever shall consist of almost literally nothing but variations on "But the other side..."

1. "But the other side did this worse thing."
2. "But the other side did the same thing and you were okay with."
3. "But the other side didn't complain when they did the same thing."
4. "Oh I guess you'd rather the other side was in charge and a bunch of stuff unrelated to the topic we're discussing happened?"
5. A cluster-eff of no-true-scotsman for my side but every extremist that's so much as even been in the same zipcode as one of your side counts arguments about categorization in order to keep 1-4 going.
6. Standard simple childish name calling and pettiness which is ironically the most mature part of most political discussions because at least I believe people are being honest when they are being petty and childish.
 
I was called a "muslim loving, tree hugging lefty and traitor to my country" for debating the recent attacks on muslims outside the mosque in the UK. I was claiming it was a terrorist attack. My "opponent" was claiming it was "just" a revenge attack. This was despite the fact I an a military veteran who served in two theaters of operations for the UK during my 12 years of service. But yep, I am a traitor because I have a different slant on things that this guy when it comes to these specific attacks.

The "them and us" is definitely getting more prevalent in the UK I feel.
 
Last edited:
funk de fino said:
I was called a "muslim loving, tree hugging lefty and traitor to my country" for debating the recent attacks on muslims outside the mosque in the UK. I was claiming it was a terrorist attack. My "opponent" was claiming it was "just" a revenge attack. This was despite the fact I an a military veteran who served in two theaters of operations for the UK during my 12 years of service. But yep, I am a traitor because I have a different slant on things that this guy when it comes to these specific attacks.

The "them and us" is definitely getting more prevalent in the UK I feel.
Click to expand...

It's them, not "us." The same old. Goose steppers merely receded last century to lick their wounds while plotting to wreak havoc anew (after having joined Western security and intelligence in many cases). They are back, with the identically mindless approach to all things: Hulk smash!

Whereas I will admit that while democracy has contemplated two natural limits to which it should hold opinion, human rights and the needs of permanent minorities, ignoring the logical requirement to disallow "extreme" wealth redistribution has meant consistent defensive plotting by the very wealthy. The rich Germans who wished to use Hitler to counter commies and the left saw that effort blow up in their face, but apparently this lesson was never learned, and here we are, same effort has been made in both the US and, to a lesser degree, the UK. No strong unions, workers turned on each other, and ignorant jack boots in power, picking the bones of the weak.
 
Last edited:
Couple of things.

First: the left-right spectrum is a convenient shortcut, but like most convenient shortcuts it lends itself to easy stereotyping, which is rarely helpful.

Second: people on extreme ends of the spectrum are the most likely to categorise and pigeonhole others as "the left" or "the right" as though those are meaningful appellations for individuals.

Third: Liberal is not the opposite of conservative. Progressive is the opposite of conservative.
 
arthwollipot said:
Couple of things.

First: the left-right spectrum is a convenient shortcut, but like most convenient shortcuts it lends itself to easy stereotyping, which is rarely helpful.

Second: people on extreme ends of the spectrum are the most likely to categorise and pigeonhole others as "the left" or "the right" as though those are meaningful appellations for individuals.

Third: Liberal is not the opposite of conservative. Progressive is the opposite of conservative.
Click to expand...
I agree with you, but, I'm sure you are aware that liberal no longer means the same thing in the US as the rest of the Anglosphere. Here, it means progressive. We don't seem to have actual liberals anymore, not in large numbers anyway.
 
ahhell said:
I agree with you, but, I'm sure you are aware that liberal no longer means the same thing in the US as the rest of the Anglosphere. Here, it means progressive. We don't seem to have actual liberals anymore, not in large numbers anyway.
Click to expand...
Hey, you're talking to a person from the country where the Liberal Party is the conservative element of government.

It's almost like the terms have become completely meaningless.
 
arthwollipot said:
Hey, you're talking to a person from the country where the Liberal Party is the conservative element of government.

It's almost like the terms have become completely meaningless.
Click to expand...

It used to be. Malcolm Trumble says it's now the party of the soft centre.
 
GodMark2 said:
However, even though you used the work "spectrum" in your description, what you seem to wanting to ask, rather than "is a left-right spectrum enough to categorize people?", is "is a left-right dichotomy enough to categorize people?". Sadly, the answer to that, at least for Congress, is still yes-ish, and according to the data, the divide between the sides is getting wider every session.

Now, the question still remains: is The US Congress reflective of the population as a while, or is it warped by the electoral process: Winner take all votes, sound byte slogans, 24-hour news cycle, facts are for pussies.
Click to expand...

It's amazing how you would even imagine Congress would be a decent sample for this question.

Also, your statement "the question still remains" suggests that the previous question doesn't remain, but it does since it relies on the assumption of Congress being a decent sample. And even then more questions remain, for example the sample could be warped by something other than the electoral process.
 
Darat said:
Liberalism is neither right nor left according to the usual definitions.
Click to expand...

Liberalism is distinctly on the right.

And liberalism is not the same as libertarianism.
Click to expand...

True. Libertarianism is a strand of communism and anarchism. In the Anglophone world though, to add to the confusion, libertarianism (ie the Mises types) is what would be called fascism elsewhere.

So that immediately adds another dimension that can't be captured by a single left right axis.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. Liberalism is between the center and the far-right, fascism is at the end of the far-right.
 
Roboramma said:
You don't know why he would consider communists to be totalitarian statists?
Click to expand...

No idea why he would consider them more as totalitarian statists than the ones I mentioned. As far as I can see they'd be quite distinctively the least totalitarian statists of those. And that's even allowing for your unspecific use of "communists" - as if it's a singular ideology.

Have you heard of the 20th century?
Click to expand...

What about it?
 
caveman1917 said:
No idea why he would consider them more as totalitarian statists than the ones I mentioned. As far as I can see they'd be quite distinctively the least totalitarian statists of those.
Click to expand...

Who said anything about more? What he said was:
theprestige said:
What political continuum puts anarchists next to totalitarian statists?
Click to expand...

There's no implication there that communists are the most totalitarian statists, just that they are totalitarian statists.


And that's even allowing for your unspecific use of "communists" - as if it's a singular ideology.
Click to expand...
I was just following your usage as it was your image that was under discussion.



What about it?
Click to expand...
It's history provides examples of communist states that were extremely totalitarian.
 
Last edited:
Roboramma said:
Who said anything about more? What he said was:


There's no implication there that communists are the most totalitarian statists, just that they are totalitarian statists.
Click to expand...

Sure there is, because if he accepts that the rest are even more totalitarian statists then the answer to his question would be the trivial: all of them.

It's history provides examples of communist states that were extremely totalitarian.
Click to expand...

That's a contradiction in terms. Communism is stateless.
 
Roboramma said:
You don't know why he would consider communists to be totalitarian statists?

Have you heard of the 20th century?
Click to expand...

Yep just like anyone calling them selves democratic or using the word republic those are also key words for totalitarian states.
 
caveman1917 said:
Sure there is, because if he accepts that the rest are even more totalitarian statists then the answer to his question would be the trivial: all of them.



That's a contradiction in terms. Communism is stateless.
Click to expand...
So where would you put marxism on that spectrum?
 
caveman1917 said:
Under communism. Where else would you put it?
Click to expand...
So, everybody that claimed to be a marxist that gained power created a totalitarian/authoritarian state yet you include it as under the rubric of a stateless system?
Edit:
I'd include it under communism but I'd call communism an authoritarian system and statist. Dictatorship of the masses still being a dictatorship and what not.
End edit.


@Ponder, how about a compromise, marxist-leninism?
 
Last edited:
caveman1917 said:
They are next to neither liberals, conservatives, nor fascists. So no idea what you're talking about.
Click to expand...
I don't even put liberal and conservative on the same continuum as statism and individualism.

On the latter continuum, fascism and communism are of course adjacent at one end. I'd always assumed that anarchism and libertarianism were adjacent at the other end.

caveman1917 said:
Liberalism is distinctly on the right.
Click to expand...
Depends on your coordinate system.

No it doesn't. Liberalism is between the center and the far-right, fascism is at the end of the far-right.
Click to expand...
Depends on your coordinate system, and what you're measuring.

caveman1917 said:
Sure there is, because if he accepts that the rest are even more totalitarian statists then the answer to his question would be the trivial: all of them.
Click to expand...
I consider conservatism and progressivism ("liberalism") to be paradigms about social change.

I consider collectivism ("statism") and individualism to be paradigms about the relationship between individuals and their government (or the governing functions of their community).

I consider the two to be distinct and orthogonal coordinate systems. A society can be progressive and individualistic, progressive and collectivist, conservative and collectivist, etc.

Communism and fascism are both extremely progressive ideologies, prescribing radical social change in order to achieve great improvements to the human condition in their societies.

And both are extremely collectivist ideologies, demanding near-total submission of the individual to the will of the collective. As Mussolini said of fascism: "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state." In practice, communism has been no less totalitarian in its view of the role of the individual in society. Nor could it be otherwise, with its abolition of private property and consequent erasure of individual agency.

That's a contradiction in terms. Communism is stateless.
Click to expand...
Enh. I won't quibble over semantics. I've been using "totalitarian", "statist", and "collectivist" more or less synonymously. And at the "collectivist" end of the collectivist-individualist continuum, "totalitarian statist" is kinda redundant anyway.

Which brings us back to my original question: what continuum puts anarchists next to totalitarian statists?

Really, it's a question about my assumptions: I think of anarchism as being progressive-individualist, since the term "anarchy" suggests rejection of collective authority or rule. So it's surprising to see it adjacent to communism, which I think of as collectivist to the point of totalitarianism.

I'd expect to see anarchism at the other end of the spectrum, alongside libertarianism. But I think of libertarianism as being agnostic about progressivism and conservatism, leaving questions of social change up to each individual or voluntary group. On the other hand, I thin of anarchism as being much more decidedly progressive, seeing social change not as an optional personal choice, but a mandate to be imposed by violence if necessary--which I guess? makes it kind of totalitarian?

Probably a better way to ask the question would be, "caveman1917, what do you think of as the distinctive similarities between communism and anarchism, and which of those shared qualities do you think of as having a more extreme expression in anarchism?"
 
theprestige said:
I don't even put liberal and conservative on the same continuum as statism and individualism.

On the latter continuum, fascism and communism are of course adjacent at one end. I'd always assumed that anarchism and libertarianism were adjacent at the other end.
Click to expand...

Anarcho-capitalists or anarcho-communists?
 
"My model is far more worthy of gazing at than yours. Mine is, like, a supermodel; yours is a dog." Meanwhile, outside the Big Truth pageant, the data stubbornly refuses to conform. Savages are not noble, dogmas have no ennobling effect on observed behaviors (although dissembling skills can be seen to spike), group membership is no guarantee of anything, and homo homini lupus prevails.

Utopias don't do well under examination, and require the same goalpost absence as do faith-based claims. Same historical amnesia, too.
 
ponderingturtle said:
Anarcho-capitalists or anarcho-communists?
Click to expand...

I confess that is a nuance beyond my ken. I suspect that anything prefixed with "anarcho-" is doomed to fail. Anarcho-communism from a lack of collective governance. Anarcho-capitalism from a lack of rule of law.

It sometimes amuses me to say that any sufficiently well-organized libertarianism is indistinguishable from government. Same with anarchism. Show me a successful anarchist project and I'll show you a project that has willingly submitted to a governing principle. Likely a personality cult, a technocracy, or a meritocracy (for sufficiently broad definitions of "merit").
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom