The Political Spectrum
It has always bothered me that the Incumbrepublocrats have managed to convince most Americans that they must choose either Left or Right, and those of us in the middle are regarded as somehow wishy-washy or unprincipled.
I see the middle as being where Liberty lies, and the farther one goes toward either extreme the closer one comes to meeting the opposition as fellow serfs in a tyranny of one form or another. I have redrawn the political spectrum as a circle instead of a straight line to illustrate this:
Click on the above diagram for a full page printable version of this diagram or: HERE
Freethinkers, Independents, Centrists, Moderates, Libertarians, and Swing Voters occupy the top of the circle, and the rabid left/right ideologues are precariously near the bottom. In my view, we should be thinking UP or DOWN, not Left or Right. Up, toward Liberty is good; Down toward Tyranny is bad, whichever foolish path one wishes to take to get there.
Up is maximum individual Freedom, Down is maximum Government control over our lives, whether by the Marxists or the Fundamentalists, whichever one talks the most of us into supporting their guys, to keep those other guys from taking the opposite path to serfdom. I say, a pox on both their miserable houses. ◄Dave►
Edit:
I just read Ronald Reagan’s “A Time for Choosing” speech nominating Barry Goldwater at the Republican Convention in 1964. I was still a John F. Kennedy Democrat at the time, and stationed in Korea, so I missed its inspiration when it was delivered. It is amazing (and depressing) how little editing it would take to make it timely today.
I was stunned by the following passage:
You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or right, but I would like to suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down–up to a man’s age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order–or down to the ant heap totalitarianism, and regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course. -Ronald Reagan
32 Responses to “The Political Spectrum”
Leave a Reply
Think Up/Down not Left/Right
Please also join us here. ◄Dave►
Hi Dave,
I was disappointed to find that although the ideologies of Communism and Socialism appeared on your diagram, the ideology of Democracy was excluded. I happen to like Democracy as an ideology because it gave me the opportunity to vote for Governor Palin.
Hey Tom!!!
Welcome aboard, and thank you for voting for my favorite politician (if you truly did); although it almost sullies the image I have of her to call her that.
Where would you place “democracy” on the circle? I do not regard democracy as an ideology in this respect; but only a method of selecting representatives of the voters for government office. We don’t live in a democracy, we live in a constitutional republic. Another term for democracy is “mob rule”; but our Constitution always trumps the popular “will of the people.” E.g. it wouldn’t matter if 99% of the sheeple voted to deny my right of free speech; the Constitution specifically says, “Congress shall make no law…” and such a referendum would be rightly overturned by the Supreme Court. There is no such protection in a democracy, and we are blessed that we don’t live in one.
Socialism is a subset of the Marxist ideology, and most socialistic countries use the democratic process to select their politicians as well. Even the USSR had regular elections; they just permitted only one Party on the Ballot – the Communist Party, which espoused the Marxist ideology. We effectively are given two choices of core ideologies: Marxism on the Left and Capitalism on the Right. Both ideologies embrace democracy as the means of selecting the politicians to represent them in our government.
As Ben Franklin said, “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb discussing what to have for breakfast.” I have no desire to be on either side of that equation. ◄Dave►
Dave, just a couple of points. Democracy, as the term has been used for over a hundred years, Is that form of government in which the sovereign power is in the hands of the people collectively, and is exercised by them either directly or indirectly through elected representatives or delegates. Ochlocracy is the term used to describe government by the multitude or “mob rule.”
On your wheel I don’t see anarchy which is the Marxist’s desired end state for government.
Hi John,
Where have you been? You have been missed. I hope all is well.
100 years sounds about right. Wilson was the first President to ever refer to the U.S. as a “democracy.” Before he and his progressives got their hands on the reins of power and forever changed the game, we were always referred to as a “republic.” I fail to see the distinction between your definition of democracy and ochlocracy. The premise of a democracy is that the current will of the majority of the people rules and can be forced upon the minority. What an utterly terrifying thought.
This is a dangerous notion to have in one’s head, and every citizen who knows better ought never to refer to America as a democracy, and correct anyone who does in their presence, for that very reason. I am frequently chagrined, by conservatives and progressives alike, when they protest a court decision that overturns on Constitutional grounds, a popularly enacted statute or referendum as, “Defying the will of the people.” Duh… YES, and thank goodness; no matter how much I might agree with the proposition, if it is unconstitutional, I wouldn’t have it any other way!
Anarchy would be top-dead-center, of course, right above libertarian. Some Marxists may delude themselves that after enough five year plans the state will wither away in a Utopian wonderland, but I reckon the switched on ones know better. Human nature being what it is, there is no way to make someone produce who is guaranteed sustenance, without some coercive element to society; just as there would be no way to force producers to share. Only an addled mind (or a numbed Marxist one) could conjure up such a vision. Anarchy will remain at the zenith and Marxism at the nadir. ◄Dave►
I agree that we are not a democracy but a republic. We are not just a republic, but a limited constitutional republic. The concepts “democracy” and ochlocracy were familiar to the ancient Greeks. I have at least one pre 1905 reference listing the U.S. as a democracy. There are probably more, I just havent looked for them. Portions of the French revolution can be characterised as ochlocracy, the French also referred to their government as a Republic. Anarchy is not a form of government, its defining characteristic is a lack of Government. I don’t believe you referred to it as a form of government, I just wanted to point that out.
Vigorous dialogue warms the heart! Marx merely wanted to overthrow the Aristocracy and the Bourgeois and overlay an economic system based on a classless society where wealth was distributed equally. Subsequent governments have proven it just does not work although I suspect the TV Show Star Trek comes the closest to demonstrating a model that works and it is fiction.
Marxists love anarchy as it opens a door for their brand of government. I sincerely think Obama’s attempts to socialize us will not work. Then again as we buy more banks and companies one cannot help but wonder what compromises we have set in motion.
Welcome Tom. Remember the Pledge, “And To The Republic For Which It Stands”.
Phil
Phil, remember the flag pledge was started by a person of socialist inclination..
Also remember the USSR, The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Just like democracy may mean different things to different people, so does republic.
There is nothing incongruous about a socialistic republic. A republic simply means that the people elect representatives to serve their interests in the government, whereas a democracy is more like government by referendum. The USSR had a constitution and popular elections for representatives to their politburo. The devil is in the details of the constitution. While ours severely limits the power of the government and acknowledges the sovereignty of the individual, theirs exalts the power of the state and severely limits the rights of the individual.
In one important way, their constitution had an improvement over ours. Their political system permitted only one Party, the Communist Party, on the ballot. The voters got to choose among various candidates for an office, but they were all members of the Communist Party – similar to our Primary elections. We simply add an additional unnecessary step by permitting (effectively only two) ostensibly competing Parties to advance their candidate for a general election. (see Incumbrepublocrats)
The improvement lies in that their constitution requires that the winner of a contest must have a majority of the votes; a plurality is not good enough. Further, they do not have runoff elections. If nobody wins a majority, a complete new election is called, and the Party must present an entire new slate of candidates! Those who failed to win a majority in the first election may not run in the second. This procedure I find most agreeable!
Let all the Incumbrepublocrats and minority party candidates for an office throw their hats into the same ring, and have an election. If one of them receives a majority, he is elected. If not, kick those hats out of the ring and call for a new lot to vote on. Repeat the process until someone strikes the fancy of a majority. That works for me.
◄Dave►
Hi Dave, Daedulus, and Phil,
My head is spinning and I thank you for making my sloppy thinking less sloppy. I am partial to Daedelus’ definition of Democracy and I think (?) that is what I had in mind in my comment to Dave. In 1880 Henry Adams wrote a novel about American government and he titled it Democracy. Thanks to Dave’s comment, I telephoned Henry last night and told him that he had made a mistake and that he should have titled the book Constitutional Republic and that he should write to the publisher and tell them to change the title the next time that they reprint it.
This leads me to another thought or half- thought that is very fuzzy and needs some help. Certainly, Dave is right that America is a constitutional republic but this seems to me to be an incomplete definitive description of what we essentially are as a body politic. So I ask: would it be inaccurate to describe the American body politic as a capitalistic, democratic, constitutional republic? And another question: when we look at the essential character of the American body politic and the American people–that is, all of those individuals who reside in the United States or elsewhere as American citizens–are each of the words (capitalistic, democratic, constitutional, and republic) of equal importance or weight in the understanding of who and what we are as a people?
And a question for Phil: We have been subsidizing farmers for decades. Is this not a form of socialism? Was there ever a good reason for farm subsidies? Although I do not know much about it, I personally wish we could get rid of farm subsidies, because I think farm subsidies are not currently good for the nation.
Thanks for your insights and mental stimulation.
Tom
[...] The Political Spectrum [...]
Hi Tom,
I’ll trump your Adams with Alexis de Tocqueville, who published the first volume of “Democracy in America” 45 years earlier in 1835; but that didn’t make our form of government a “Democracy.” I stand by my statement that it was Wilson who was the first President to refer to the US as a Democracy in a State of the Union address.
Thanks for the tip on Adams’ satirical novel about political intrigue in DC, which he wrote anonymously. It brings to mind the delightful “Primary Colors” about Bill Clinton’s first campaign for President, which was eventually admitted to have been written by Joe Klein. I found a copy of it here, and have bookmarked it for a fun read at some point.
You are free to use Daedulus’ definition of a democracy, as long as you realize how incomplete it is, and do not leap the the notion of “one adult – one vote” universal suffrage, which was a foolish twentieth century mistake that did not prevail during our nineteenth century authors’ time. Our founders would have been horrified at the idea of giving tax consumers a say in how much to confiscate from the taxpayers.
Interesting question… I would still eschew using the word “democratic” in that list because of the misunderstanding of “majority rule” that it generally engenders. Conversely, most Americans haven’t a clue what “republic” means, and I reckon they need to learn. Look at the shock and outrage when Gore won the popular vote, but not the electoral college where the representatives of the voters did the actual Constitutional choosing of Bush as our President.
It is also interesting to note how much the word “capitalistic” has been demonized in my lifetime, and how much the word “socialistic” has been rehabilitated. The opposite was true in my childhood.
Then, it is notable that far too many Americans have bought into the “Living Constitution” concept, and the erroneous notion that judges are free to reinterpret it according to current prevailing societal preferences. This is the most dangerous trend of all for our Republic’s survival, for it renders the Constitution meaningless if the rules of our society can be changed on a whim. Those who get the vapors over the popularly supported Patriot Act, Guantanamo, and water-boarding should keep this in mind. The pendulum is always swinging, and the next 9/11 is bound to be worse than the last one.
Thus, were I to try to articulate the essential character of the American body politic and the American people, it would be simply “A nation of Sheeple.”
Phil can answer for himself, but I would like to comment on this too. Yes, farm subsidies are a form of socialism. They are not only not currently good for the nation, they never have been, and never should have begun (how is that for a string of negatives?) They are extra-Constitutional and dead wrong. Nowhere in our (original) Constitution does it say the Federal government has the right to tax productive citizens for redistribution to other citizens for any purpose, however dire their needs might be. We, as consumers, are effectively double taxed by these subsidies. First to pay them, and again when we have to pay artificially high prices for their produce, because the government paid millionaires not to grow crops to keep prices up above normal market levels.
For further mental stimulation, please read our friend Troy’s new screed, which covers many of these subjects very well. ◄Dave►
I will use the reference Wiki to speak to farm subsidies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farm_subsidies. Not the most reliable source but should suffice for addressing the definition. It has been my contention we are a nation dedicated to Corporate Welfare and exercise “free market” ideals only when it serves us. The current crisis demonstrates this well as bailout after bailout is applied. Our food source is manipulated by the Government for our benefit but perhaps for Corporate Benefit since they own all the farms. I suspect we do have a form of Corporate Socialism versus Socialism as an application to The People.
[...] The Political Spectrum [...]
Dear Dave and Phil,
Thank you for your comments. My mind is still swimming. I have thoughtfully read your comments twice–at least–at different sittings, as well as Troy’s Secession piece along with the comments that followed. I am very impressed by the clearly written expressions of passion and conviction and the depth and quantity of thought and detail. I have some thoughts to express aloud.
As an American citizen, I share much anger and frustration. On the other hand, I do not believe there can exist a political utopia, whether the embedded economic system is capitalistic or socialistic, or a blend of both. Because human beings are imperfect creatures, all governments, institutions, and professions will have elements of corruption and incompetence: and if these pockets of corruption and incompetence are unattended, they can erode and\or destroy a government, an institution, or a profession. Along with many others, I also think that human beings are animals capable of reason and that human beings are also social animals who thrive best by forming social contracts, that is, systems of agreements with commitments, rights and responsibilities, although the social contracts (including the Constitution) may be imperfect ones. As time moves and flaws in the social contract become apparent and new problems develop, the parties involved in the social contract must make choices to correct present and potential problems. In such a process, I think that intelligent, honest, sincere, and competent men and women will sometimes make mistakes, though they act with good intentions. And I also think that all complex problems are not immediately solvable and that some problems cannot be solved at all. When “corrections or “perceived corrections” are made, there well may be some negative, unintended consequences. Consequently, adjustments will be needed. So the cycle continues and more imperfect representatatives in a constitutional repubic will attempt to solve complex problems. So it goes.
So, for me, given the imperfections of human nature and American strengths balanced against America’s weaknesses (democracy’s flaws, capitalism’s flaws), I think that living in America and accepting my rights and responsibilities (as I understand them in the context of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and its Amendments, and The Gettysburg Address (especially a government of, and by, and for the people) is the best choice for me at this time and place, my here and now. And I am thankful that I can freely discuss and write about this free choice to live in America, while at the same time honoring and respecting those who think and choose differently.
A closing note: I believe that Freedom is not an absolute and that Freedom is not free. My freedom–my ability to make important and significant political, economic, and personal choices in a personally secure and comfortable environment–is deeply rooted in the risks and the sacrifices that many Americans have made through the years in order to make and preserve the identity of the United States. I am humbled at the thought.
Tom
[...] Reply to Tom’s comments from ◄Dave► [...]
[...] The Political Spectrum [...]
Thank you Dave.
This is a great compilation with a clear and concise chart that I have been seeking. Tests such as the Nolan chart is so unstable.
I belong in the center aiming for the top.
I promoted your chart with video and brought up “A Time for Choosing” with Ronald Regan in our patriot community forums.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBswFfh6AY
:~)
[...] The Political Spectrum [...]
I find it rather disappointing if not sad that theories such as Communism and Socialism fall under “tyranny” in your diagram. Please, i beg you, show me how on earth do such theories fall under tyranny. I find your diagram offensive in the sense that you may even believe that it I as a viewer would even consider this closely accurate. Articulate your position and argue for it. I wish not to offend you but if such information is widely available to people who are interested in learning then I believe that I have a responsibility not to let them continue with such a horrible distorted view on ANY of these political systems.
yeah, that’s an accurate chart. I even like Reagan’s quote, except he’s part of the Empire gang, so those words simply expose him as a liar.
@Andreas ~ Each of these systems fell under tyranny, historically. I’m beginning to suspect that each system has merit, but when imposed over large segments of society (either geographically or economically), each system falls prey to tyrants who abuse centralized command for their own profit.
We need a little of each, but we need it at local levels where each system does good for the community. Communism, for example, is wonderful for small food cooperatives. At that small level, participatory democracy can thrive.
Capitalism spurs innovation and invention, so it has its place.
Socialism in the global South is doing well by its people; it’s the elites who hate having their plunder restored to those they exploited. (e.g. land reform)
What the US has done is deregulate predatory capitalism and socialize failed enterprises (banks, auto makers, health insurance industry). The US has taken the very worst of each system and is wiping out the Middle Class (so they now join the ranks of the poor), while the elites further concentrate their wealth.
From a US perspective, we getting screwed from all sides by these systems — not because each system is inherently bad, but because those at the top are teasing out the most exploitative functions of each system. That’s why we see all these systems as bad — altho, admittedly, to say that is an over simplification.
[...] ao Totalitarismo. Outro modelo apresentado por Berdichevsky é o do Compasso Político, (http://www.thoughtsaloud.com/essays/the political spectrum/), em cuja rosa-dos-ventos situam-se quatro conceitos políticos fundamentais: Liberdade, Servidão, [...]
[...] I discovered Thoughts Aloud. A post from 2008 has a very similar drawing of the political spectrum, which I did not see before drawing the above. Advertisement Eco World Content From Across The [...]
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b398/samsara2005/stumble/non-sequitur-troublemaker.gif
It’s greatly troubling that as Russia becomes more liberal and allows protests that even a decade ago would have been unthinkable, Britain’s going the other way. Protests of all kinds are going to be banned during the period of the Olympics. Honestly, the UK gets more like old-school Russia every day.
This example of the political spectrum certainly proves that if we each made one, it would be skewed to our own views. Your chart is moronic as very few people can take a truly objective view. Truth obviously does not exist when taling politics.
From my perch in centerfield, I have a remarkably objective view of Left/Right politics, Steve. Sorry, the chart was intended only for a mature audience. You may have stumbled into a site where the level of discussion might just be beyond your ken. You reveal your handicap by employing the sophomoric taunt of ‘moron,’ which is so ubiquitous among the sniveling, over-schooled, and undereducated kids wasting their lives being indoctrinated by academia these days. If you ever learn to think for yourself, and take a notion to challenge ideas instead of name-calling, come back and we can debate the merits of my position. ◄Dave►
Hey! This is super helpful! Is it okay if I put this graph on a blog post I just wrote? If you click on it, it will link back to you. Thanks a lot!
http://www.averageadvocate.com/2012/07/preview-series-politics-poverty-god-christianity-welfare/#
Nice blog, Elisa, and the graphic looks great there. You are more than welcome to use anything you find here, in any way you wish. I really liked the approach you are taking in the article, and I hope my insight here helped you feel not only OK, but in the principled position as a ‘moderate’ in center-field.
I don’t qualify to contribute to your project; but I will be fascinated to watch it develop. Best of luck with it. You might find value in an old post of mine: Liberty vs. Faith Thanks for stopping by. I hope to see you again. ◄Dave►
Dave, Great chart and dialog. It is imperative that the public mind be educated as to how they have been manipulated through right/left talking points without realizing they both lead to the same thing. Since your original posting (looks to be prior to the 2008 election) there appears to have been the beginnings of a “great awakening”. We will see come this November.
Here are a few thoughts/questions:
I don’t really see any value in identifying one’s self or a group as being independent, moderate, swing voter, or centrist as you place them on the top of the chart. These “groups” are part of the problem in that they have not taken any real stand (thus fall for anything). We have a two party system in place whether we like it or not. Freedom loving people must be active in the primary process and stand for liberty. These groups stand on the sidelines and toss stones at the parties while not being the least bit accountable themselves.
Concerning “Blue Dogs”. Where are they? Do they still exist? Rhinos are alive and well. The difference is Rhinos are on the run from their base primary voters and the Democrat party has purged their blue dogs.
Once a society has reached the bottom, how does it cycle back? Did you consider a circle or cyclical type spectrum? Once totalitarian government is in place it will fail at some point with anarchy taking place for a period. Or the other way, anarchy giving way to totalitarianism. Either way that seem to be the place where the circle would close.
I think it takes much greater effort and engagement from the public to maintain freedom than to slide toward tyranny. Thus your down side is true in that doing nothing “gravity” will naturally lead to tyranny.
Since monetary and fiscal policy (“Economics”) is inseparable and virtually indistinguishable from Politics, it seems necessary to add a third axis (Capitalist – Communist) perpendicular to those depicted; ie. a sphere rather than a circle.
Now that ALL politicians have become liars, I’d say that we now live in a Hypocracy.
Hi Dave,
To the right of Fascism is Socialism, which has more freedom than Fascism. To the right of that is Democracy, which provides more freedom to the majority and to the right of that is a Constitutional Republic which strives to provide freedom to all. Check out the new book: The Political Spectrum: Freedom vs Enslavement. You’ll love it.
Boy, I’m a little late on this conversation, but better late than never. I liked what you did with the spectrum. But there is a simpler answer. The Left Right spectrum was imported from Europe. They never included a constitutional republic on their scale. If you expand the scale to the right toward more and more freedom, the scale actually begins to work. There is only one thing between Communism and Fascism and that’s bloody revolution!