Redifing the Left/Right Paradigm

[ItWillNeverWork]

It occured to me some time ago that the usual way of orgainising political opinion by aranging them on a line from left to right is completley inadequate for explaining the vast range of differing viewpoints in our world.

Not only is it oversimplistic to the point of stupidity, it also seems quite dangerous in that it restricts the scope for newer thinking and creates an 'us' versus 'them' mentality.

Whilst reading another post in the 'Liberal BS' chat room, I came across the following statement...

"Bush is not a conservative, neither is Fox News. These are neoconservatives. That is, members of the Left who call themselves conservatived."

At first glance I found it absurd to call George Bush left wing. Then it occurd to me that the definition of left and right is even more subjective than I first considered.

Some policies that are traditionally viewed as left wing were once considered right wing, some people who claim to be on the right still hold left wing ideals.

So, Isn't it time we invented a more descriptive analogy to describe political opinion. One that provides more accuracy than the Left/Right Line?

Here is one site on the net that tries to carry out this task:

www.politicalcompass.org/

[ItWillNeverWork]

I guess noone has anything to say on this then?

[ItWillNeverWork]

I'm bumping this thread in vain hope that someone might reply. Also, it conveniently fits in with my recent post 'What is Liberalism?'. I believe it is important to discuss this as our current way of thinking is breeding a lot of ignorance on all sides.

I'll get us all started.

My started proposition ( which is basically the same as the one put forward on the website I linked to) is that instead of the Line going from Left to right with no real definition of what is what, we have a line going horizontally that at one end has fascist and at the other anarchist. In between would be the varying degrees. Instead of simply having one line however, we have a different line for each sphere of policy. Economic issues, social issues and religious issues appear to be the three broadest categories that stick out immediately.

So for example the line of economics would be a little like this.


Fascist-Authoritarian-Illiberal-Mixed-Liberal-Libertarian-Anarchist

The Republican Party would fall under 'liberal', The Libertarian Party under (you guessed it) 'libertarian' and the Democrats under 'mixed'.

The social line would be the same except that the Republicans would fall under 'illiberal' and the Democrats under 'liberal'. As for the Libertarian party I am not sure. (Anyone know their policies?)

[Chuck]

Economics, Dem's are MIXED? Are you joking or trying
to get a new approach started with a clearly ridiculous start?

The Dems in your continuum approach authoritarian, if not fascism (the individual has little control over his/her own economic situation because the Dems want more and more control over the economy and want to confiscate most wealth frrom "the rich.")

Get real, if you want a dialogue on your otherwise legitimate idea.

[ItWillNeverWork]

Your perspective on economics is extremley skewed. To describe the Democratic Party as economically Fascist is utter nonsence, if not offensive to those who have suffered under genuine economic fascism.

The economic policy of the Dems is not even as regulatory as the european model of social democracy let alone the genuine facsists of the communist countries.

I would say that communism would fall under the catagory of economically fascist, Parties such as the SWP fall under authoritarian, Old labour under Illiberal and the Dems as Mixed.

I suggest you stop being so geocentric take a look at politics as a whole instead of from a purely republican perspective. You may disagree with the policies of the Democrats but it does not mean they are off to the extremes.

To get a balanced view on this subject you have to look at each ideology relative to others and if you do that then you will see that the democrats (who want a free market with social protection and some public amenities) are infact mixed.

[scummybear]

I believe it is a difficult thread to respond to given the hair splitting of terms mixed with archaic and overly cerebral illustrations of what you believe "left" and "right" to be. Who cares? For the purposes of conversation, I think most people know what is meant by "liberal" and "conservative", "Moderate" "Extreme" etc. . . and apply them accordingly. People are going to use the nomenclature that they feel most comfortable with in efforts to have discussion about their opinions. It seems that this is not particularly an issue for the purpose and context of political discussion unless the question is pertaining to one's affiliation or motives.

[Walter]

IWNW, your response to Chuck is a good indication of why this thread won't develop.

If you listen to the rhetoric of the Democrat leadership (Daschle, Ted Kennedy, Pelosi, Feinstein, Boxer, etc.) they clearly want more governmental control over the economy and have no trust whatever in private enterprise and the people's will.

How you can see that as "mixed" is beyond me. A very generous and inaccurate rating is illiberal...

The current GOP leadership (In both the White House and Congress) is clearly "illiberal" by your definition and, hopefully, will be pushed to "mixed" by the left.

Sorry you are so ideological about this because your original scale had a lot of promise.