
#REDIRECT Political spectrum
==Archive== /Archive 1 == New Model == http://www.originmap.org/ Actually, I made it. User:Juan Ponderas 08:04, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC) :Seems similar to the 3-d model of the Friesian Institute. Have you checked that out? Follow the external link. :Harvestdancer ::Uh... that doesn't seem too similar. User:Juan Ponderas 00:34, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC) :::The originmap site should at least be admissable in the more permissive external links section with an explanatory title or phrase. It captures a different concept than the Friesian site.--User:Silverback 21:19, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC) ::::Well, I was going to add it to the main article, but I was waiting to finish the site. But yeah, a comment would be good for now. User:Juan Ponderas 22:50, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC) ::::: Ah yes, I see the difference. Technically you have four axes - negative economic, negative social, positive economic, positive social. User:Harvestdancer 22:58, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) ::::::I do? I'm not sure how. User:Juan Ponderas 23:54, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) ::::::: Who has the power, how much power they have. That's 2. Both apply to economic or civil, that's 2. 2x2=4.User:Harvestdancer 23:20, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC) ::::::::(Please, Ignore this comment, see below).I suppose you could splice it into four, though I see know reason why. But the terms, positive and negative, is where I was thrown off. It sounds like a reference to positive and negative rights, but that is more along the lines of the Nolan Chart. While we're discussing this, can you think of any good names for my chart? User:Juan Ponderas 03:15, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC) ::::::::Oh, I see what you mean. I guess I associated positive liberty with positive rights, and didn't see what you meant by that, or how the Friesian model is similar. User:Juan Ponderas 02:24, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC) Examining it more closely, I think I was wrong. It seems you are using only 2 axes, to cover both the amount of power and who holds the power, making the assertion that if you are in between majority and minority, you are close to libertarian. That's an assertion that needs work though. User:Harvestdancer 21:20, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC) :Well, you have that assertion dead-on. And yes, it needs work. Unlike the Friesian Institute, I'm prepared to go to war to promote my chart, but the most important thing is to develope the reasoning behind the assertions I'm making. To that end I'm setting up a [http://www.originmap.org/library/index.php?title=Main_Page Wiki]. Nearly all articles are unstarted, and the look is not at all finished, but when those are done I will submit my site to the search engines, something I haven't done, and start checking around some sites in an attempt to get some small community involved. Essentially, I need to prove two things. First, that authoritarians and communitarians advocate different agendas on a wide range of issues. If the standard for political models is that they must not place different ideologies in the same place, this discounts the Nolan Chart. Then the assertion you stated, to prove it over the Friesian model. And some other interesting ones, like how historical movements follow a more or less straight line on my chart but make a wierd u-turn on the Nolan and a V on the Friesian. And of course, building a test to exceed Political Compass's; that shouldn't be hard, they labeled me as a libertarian. As it is, my site looks nicer than theirs. Hope this wasn't too far off subject... User:Juan Ponderas 05:02, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC) == "Westernized Political Spectrum" == The recently added section Westernized Political Spectrum strikes me as almost completely incoherent. Maybe I'm just tired, but I doubt it. I don't want to just delete this in case there is something coherent here. Could someone besides its author take a good look at it and respond here? -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 07:35, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC) :It brings two important ideas to the table, but needs rewritten. The two important ideas are: #Non-Western countries have a different left-right paradigm (China is an especially good example) #Extremists have more in common w each other than they do w either the left ''or'' the right (i.e. extremists tend towards revolution, anarchy, and totalitarianism). : 11:59, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC) ::Do you want to try rewriting accordingly? And would you agree that the section header is wrong? -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 19:12, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC) ::: Ick, no. This doesn't deserve a whole section. It deserves a bullet under Political_spectrum#Alternative_spectra as the Reactionary - Radical axis. Now why he is calling it "westernized" needs explanation. Yes, different areas have a different left-right paradigm, which is why "Alternative Spectra" doesn't mention left or right. User:Harvestdancer 23:04, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC) ===How about this?=== *Change versus Tradition: ''Radical'' (who believe in rapid change) vs. ''Reactionary'' (who believe in no change) User:Harvestdancer 23:07, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC) :Looks good, a discussion of Positive liberty / negative liberty would be good as well. 23:17, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC) I would not say it is at all true that reactionaries "believe in no change". Very often they are trying to restore a real or imagined ''status quo ante'', which requires a great deal of change. For example, the few remaining outright white supremacists in the US South are reactionaries who wish to make enormous changes. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 01:39, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC) :Agreed. The nature of reactionary politics -- including much of what is called "conservatism" today -- is to recreate an ideal that is believed to be represented in the past. For instance, the American "pro-family" movement seeks to recreate the ideal they see in post-WWII, pre-"sexual revolution" nuclear families. Whether this ideal ''ever existed'' is not in the argument. :The reactionary differs from the revolutionary chiefly in that the former claims to be looking backward and the latter forward. The former claims to be re-establishing old values which have been lost in the present day, while the latter claims to be overthrowing old values which have ill held on in the present day. The depth and collateral damage of the changes they propose do not differ. --User:Fubar Obfusco 01:54, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) ::Actually, look into anarcho-primitivism, if you get far enough to one extreme, you tend to end up on the other side ;) 11:55, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) :::On that note, I want to mention that I don't see a sharp distinction between those who want a centralized economy run by the state, and those who advocate absolute laissez-faire capitalism, meaning businesses can grow and merge until they BECOME the state... User:DanielCristofani 06:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) ===Conservative vrs. Liberal?=== Hm, I'm not sure on "conservative" and "liberal". It seems to me that "radical" and "reactionary" might work better. Liberal and conservative require a disambugation as you are using traditional definitions instead of political definitions on a political page. That's not very ... useful. Also, this is the "Alternative spectra" section, not the "right left" section. Liberals and conservatives might find these designations to be POV. User:Harvestdancer 07:11, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) :Well, I did it the way I did in order to sidestep the problem of radicalism / revolutionism vs. reactionary. I don't see these groups as different, certainly not in their practices, and not really in their rhetoric either. For example, these groups tend to favor localism, Anti-Globalism, Anti-Zionism (indeed both the extreme left and right are often accused of being anti-semitic), and anti-statism in their rhetoric. Frankly I don't see substantial difference between the two, except in how they are viewed by outsiders, and hence who turns up at their meetings (altho both militias and green party meetings have alot of long hairs / mullets, and old beat up military clothing ;) 11:55, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) == Fascism == It is apparent that nobody likes Fascism, because those who would describe themselves as "right wing" would prefer to place Fascism on the left while those who would describe themselves as "left wing" would prefer to place Fascism on the right. Traditionally it is listed as Right Wing Socialism. Perhaps using the phrase "and also Fascism" instead of "and Fascism" will soften to tone, or adding commentary as to it's disputed but traditional placement.User:Harvestdancer 16:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) == Revision of multiaxis section == Portrayed that way, the Political compass does look more like the Eysenck model. I think, though, it is just a clever illusison. Take a look at this model on their [http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/images/bothaxes.gif website]. This version has the axes drawn in, economic and social. That is identical to the Nolan chart. Your version, and the one they use later on the site, use the resulting ideologies as axes in themselves, which is just another representation of the Nolan chart. Furthermore, I think we need an actual image of the Eysenck model. The one beside it, described below as 'similar', is actually very different. They both have a left-right axis, but in the Eysenck model the second axis is between democracy and authoritarianism- essentially, the 'political liberty' axis of the Friesian chart. This is very, very different from the axis between government control and libertarianism portrayed in the current image. User:Juan Ponderas 22:52, 8 May 2005 (UTC) :I don't think we're arguing about the facts, just the interpretations of those facts. Yes, the PC chart is a different orientation of the Nolan, which is a different orientation of the Eysenck. At least on a two-dimensional axis, there are only so many ways you can chart political ideology. That different orientation in and of itself, in my opinion, makes it noticeably different. Last, I think that the results show that this different orientation is important. Taking the Nolan test, I land quite deeply in the left-wing [labeled "liberal" by the test I was directed to] quadrant. In the PC test, which has a left-wing half, I land in the Left-Libertarian side. Such a discrepancy in terms [I'm reminded of the "liberal-minded communist" quotation in the article], at least, should warrant the 1-2 paragraphs on the PC that I added, and the additional paragraph on the Nolan I added, which mentioned the left-right diagonal, et al. :I should say, however, that for the above, I'm going by the Wikipedia picture of the Eysenck. If it's inaccurate, which I suppose it may very well be, can you offer a more (or the) correct picture? But I don't think that Government vs. Individual Decision [current] is much different than democracy vs. authoritarianism [correct]. User:Bloodsorr0w 20:28, 10 May 2005 ::I wouldn't equate the PC's chart with their test; the latter is sometimes grossly inaccurate- how they can label me a libertarian is almost beyond my imagination. ::That being said, there is a significant difference between the two axes. 'Democracy versus authoritarianism' concerns views on who should rule. 'Government vs. individual decision' refers to the amount of power exercised by that government. The two do not correspond, at least directly. Advocates of collective decisisons or government power can easily be democratic or authoritarian. ::The Eysenck model simply adds the dimension of political liberty to the traditional left-right axis. Thus, it results in distinguishment, for example, between democratic leftists and authoritarian leftists. It does not distinguish between social issues and economic, and ideologies such as libertarianism that are niether liebral or conservative on both have no place on it. ::On the Nolan Chart, government power is split into two axes, social and economic. This does allow libertarians and other philosophies to be placed. It doesn't address at all political liberty, and whether one believes government should be democratic or authoritarian. ::I had never heard of the Eysenck model before this article. I made a quick chart of the model as described by the article (thus, it is not terribly aesthetically pleasing yet). I was unsure how to approach placing ideologies on, and left them out. ::::User:Juan Ponderas 03:04, 13 May 2005 (UTC) That model mentioned in the Eysenck section, which is pictured- do we know the creator of the chart? User:Juan Ponderas === Vosem Question and Pournelle Question === I asked, before the archive, if the Vosem Chart should still be included here. Since the archive happened before anyone responded, I'll bring it upagain. Yes, it's one person's article on a webpage, but it is interesting. It certainly doesn't merit a separate Wikipedia article, and the separate article was deleted, but perhaps it does deserve one or two lines near the end of Multi-Axis Models and an external link.User:Harvestdancer 18:17, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC) :I'd have no problem with that, but I can see a "slippery slope" argument... -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 18:28, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC) ::True, but slippery slope is a fallacy. I have long been annoyed w the removal of the Vosem chart, and its page, and would appreciate and support its mention here. Cheers, 15:50, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) ::I too agree it should be included. It's not as if there are obvious flaws in the chart's logic, and in my opinion it is more sensible than certain other charts mentioned. And it is interesting, to a degree. User:Juan Ponderas 03:51, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) :::Well, we are started down the same road that got Vosem deleted last time. Someone put brackets around it to make a page out of it, which if someone writes it will soon get deleted as the only reference is the article by the creator of the chart just like last time. I removed the brackets, making it plain test again. It deserves mention here, and we've linked to the article, but Vosem still doesn't warrant it's own article.User:Harvestdancer 22:47, 13 May 2005 (UTC) ::::I'm curious: if the Vosem chart and most other models are not to have individual pages, why then does the Pournelle chart have its own? It doesn't seem remarkable in any way, and returns ~220 hits on google as opposed to Vosem's near thousand. Should it's contents be moved to this article? User:Juan Ponderas 23:45, 15 May 2005 (UTC) :::::You make a good point. You should nominate it for combining it into this page.User:Harvestdancer 22:01, 18 May 2005 (UTC) :::::I meant to hit "preview" to see what it would look like, and saved instead, combining most of the data from Pournelle_Chart into this article. I guess I just took the first step towards consolidating the pages.User:Harvestdancer 22:07, 18 May 2005 (UTC) :Pournelle_Chart survived the Vote for Deletion. Yay! Even though I nominated it, I approve of keeping it. Now we might proceed with recreating the Vosem page. User:Harvestdancer 16:35, 31 May 2005 (UTC) == An uncited definition == Someone recently added text claiming that one of the definitions of the left/right contrast is "Whether it is best to subsidise the weak (left) or strong (right)." There is no citation for this, and it sounds propagandistic. If no one can provide a citation in the next 48 hours, I intend to delete it. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 05:28, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC) It probably deserves to be removed for being uncited - but how exactly is it "propagandistic"? Do you think that POV is somehow less truthful than the others presented? User:Matturn 10:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) I've removed it. As for why propagandistic: no one on the right would overtly say "we believe in subsidizing the strong". -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 23:02, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC) ==Theory== 1,790,000 Google hits for political+spectrum+theory; it is in fact a theory, not unlike evolution or creationism with its dissenters from primary premises & validity. User:Nobs01 21:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==POV== The section about the Pournelle Chart makes a very POV statement when it labels anarchists as "given to tossing bombs around for the fun of it". As an anarchist I find this offensive. I have never been violent and definetly never would be for the fun of it, and neither would any other true anarchists. Some anarchists engage in political violence which they deem necessary, but it is not a matter of "fun". And to characterize all anarchists as violent is incredibly ignorant. Perhaps a better way of describing anarchists on the Pounelle Chart would be to define more what Pournelle means by "rational" and "irrational" and come up with a better reason why anarchists are supposedly irrational. (By: Upset anarchist 1:08 am, June 23 2005, Pacific Standard time)
The political spectrum theory is a way of comparing or visualizing different politics positions, by placing them upon one or more geometry axis. === Determining political spectra === The key assumption of such a spectrum is that people's views on many issues correlate strongly, or that one essential issue subsumes or dominates all others. For a political spectrum to exist, there must be range of beliefs. Political systems in which most people fall clearly into one group or another with almost no one in between, such as most nationalist controversies, are not well described by a political spectrum. In a modern Islamic country, for instance, a political spectrum might be divided along the issue of the clergy's role in government. Those who believe clerics should have the power to enforce Islamic law are on one end of the spectrum, those who support a secular society are on the other; moderates fall at various points in between. In Republic of China, the political spectrum is defined in terms of Chinese reunification versus Taiwan independence. Even in issues of nationalism, spectra can exist; for example, in the Basque Country of Spain, Basque nationalists range from the EAJ/PNV, who have engaged in coalition governments with both the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party and the conservative People's Party (Spain), to ETA, which engage in terror tactics and armed struggle against the Spanish national government, which they view as an occupying power. Political spectra can end when one group wins so thoroughly that there is no longer a divergence of opinions. This occurred in the 1970s during the Cultural Revolution in the People's Republic of China in the case between the rightists and the leftists in which the leftists won, or in the late 18th century controversy between the Federalists and the Anti-federalists in the United States. Often in this situation the winners start disagreeing over new issues, and a new political spectrum is created. In some cases, the defeated side can re-appear after several years or several decades, and start the controversy anew. At other times the political spectrum remains, while the issues which define the spectrum change. The controversy over the selection of William of Orange's successor to the English throne helped to define the British political spectrum which exists to this day, long after the original controversy was resolved. In some cases, especially in democratic countries without a "first past the post" system, multiple spectra can co-exist. For example, from it's founding in 1901 to 1909, the Commonwealth of Australia had two equally strong policial spectra - Free Trade vs. Protectionism and Workers vs. Bosses . However, by 1909 the first continuum had become irrelevent, and the two leading parties of each idea (Free Trade Party and Protectionist Party) merged to become the Commonwealth Liberal Party , in order to better compete with the strong workers' party (Australian Labor Party). This second continuum remained dominant in federal Australian politics until the mid-1990's. == Left and Right == ''See main article Left-Right politics'' In modern Western countries, the political spectrum usually is described along Left-wing politics-Right-wing politics lines. This traditional political spectrum is defined along an axis with conservatism, theocracy, and fascism ("the right") on one end, and socialism and communism ("the left") on the other. In North America and Europe, the term Political liberal refers to a wide range of political viewpoints which can not easily be categorized as "left" or "right". Classical European liberalism developed as a reaction to the status quo of monarchical rule. This vein of thought, which emphasized the rights of the individual versus the state, was incorporated somewhat into American conservatism, where the growing federal government is perceived as the threat to the individual, but also somewhat into American liberalism, depending on the issue. For example, American conservatives have a stronger belief in private property, while liberals believe in the individual's right to an abortion without government intervention. Both sides claim to be more for religious freedom than the other. The terms left and right were also used to describe politics in China starting in the 1920s until the 1980s, although the issues were often very different from those in Western nations. ===Multiplicity of interpretation of the left-right axis=== There are various different opinions about what is actually being measured along this axis: * Whether the government's involvement with the economy should be interventionist/socialist (left) or laissez-faire/capitalist (right). This was the most prominent distinction in much of the world outside the US for most of the 20th century. * Whether the state should prioritize equality (left) or liberty (right). This was proposed by Danielle Allen. [http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041220&c=7&s=forum] * Whether the state should prioritize social liberty (left) or economic liberty (right). * Whether the government's involvement with moral issues should be minimal (left) or interventionist (right). * 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). * In budgeting and financial priorities, tending to promote economic security (left) or economic freedom (right). * Fair outcomes (left) versus fair processes (right). This was proposed by Australian Labor Party leader Mark Latham. * 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. * Whether people should be more motivated by empathy (left) or direct self-interest (right). ===Historical origin of the terms=== The terms ''Left'' and ''Right'' to refer to political affiliation originated early in the French Revolutionary era, and referred originally to the seating arrangements in the Glossary of the French Revolution#Governmental structures of France. The aristocracy sat on the right of the Speaker (traditionally the seat of honor) and the commoners sat on the Left, hence the terms Right-wing politics and Left-wing politics. Originally, the defining point on the ideological spectrum was the ''ancien régime'' ("old order"). "The Right" thus implied support for aristocratic or royal interests, while "The Left" implied opposition to the same. Because the political franchise at the start of the revolution was relatively narrow, the original "Left" represented mainly the interests of the bourgeoisie, the rising capitalist class. At that time, support for laissez-faire capitalism and Free markets were counted as being on the left; today in most Western countries these views would be characterized as being on the Right. As the franchise expanded over the next several years, it became clear that there was something to the left of that original "Left": the precursors of socialism and communism, advocating the interests of wage-earners and peasants. ==Alternative spectra == Some people feel that it is not obvious how these various concepts are related. They say that it is very confusing to speak of the right or the left without indicating what exactly you are referring to. They believe that one should first establish context by defining the axes upon which different positions will be measured. Nonetheless, the right-left spectrum is so common as to be taken for granted. Many people even have a hard time conceptualizing any alternative to it. However, numerous alternatives exist, usually having been developed by people who feel their views are not fairly represented on the traditional right-left spectrum. Perhaps the simplest alternative to the left-right spectrum was devised as a rhetorical tool during the Cold War. This was a circle which brought together the far right and left ends of the traditional spectrum, equating "extreme socialism" (i.e. the Communist Party) with "extreme conservatism" (i.e. Fascism). This nexus was particularly useful to those opposed to rapprochement with the Soviet Union. Another alternative spectrum offered by the conservative ''American Federalist Journal'' emphasizes the degree of political control, and thus places totalitarianism at one extreme and anarchism (no government at all) at the other extreme. Yet another alternative, currently popular among certain environmentalists, uses a single axis to measure what they consider to be the good of the Earth against the good of big business, which is seen as being the force most likely to harm the earth. In 1998, political author Virginia Postrel, in her book ''The Future and Its Enemies'', offered a new single axis spectrum that measures one's view of the future. On one extreme are those who allegedly fear the future and wish to control it, whom Postrel calls ''stasists''. On the other hand are those who want the future to unfold naturally and without attempts to plan and control, for whom she uses the name ''dynamists''. Other axes that might merit consideration include: *Role of the church: ''Clericalism'' vs. ''Anti-clericalism''. This axis is not significant in the United States where views of the role of religion tend to get subsumed into the general left-right axis, but in Europe clericalism versus anti-clericalism is much less correlated with the left-right spectrum. *Urban vs. rural: This axis is also much more significant in European as well as Australian and Canadian politics than American. *Foreign policy: ''interventionism'' (the nation should exert power abroad to implement its policy) vs. ''isolationism'' (the nation should keep to its own affairs) *Market policy: ''socialism'' (government should democratize or control economic productivity) vs. ''laissez-faire'' (government should leave the market alone) vs. ''corporatism'' (government should subsidize or support existing successful businesses) *Political violence: ''pacifism'' (political views should not be imposed by violent force) vs. ''militant'' (violence is a legitimate or necessary means of political expression). In North America, holders of these views are often referred to as "doves" and "War hawk", respectively. *Foreign trade: ''globalization'' (world economic markets should become integrated and interdependent) vs. ''autarky'' (the nation or polity should strive for economic independence). During the early history of the Commonwealth of Australia, this was the major political continuum. Then it was called ''Free trade'' vs. ''Protectionism''. *Diversity: ''multiculturalism'' (the nation should represent a diversity of cultural ideas) vs. ''assimilationism'' or ''nationalism'' (the nation should represent the dominant ethnic group) *Participation: ''Democracy'' (rule of the majority) vs. ''Oligarchy'' (rule by a limited number of people) vs. ''Republic'' (a compromise between the two - this is a specialised use of the term republic based on an interpretation of classical history) *Freedom: ''Positive liberty'' (Having ''rights'' which obligate others) vs. ''Negative liberty'' (Freedom from interference by others) *Progress: ''radical'' (who believe in rapid change) vs. ''Conservatives'' (who believe in minimal or cautious change) == Multi-axis models == A one-axis model is highly over-simplified, and lumps together fairly different political propositions; in particular, as seen before, there are many ways to define the left-right spectrum, which do not yield the same classifications. Several of the political philosophies that have arisen over the past two centuries do not fit on the one-dimensional left/right line, in particular anarchism and libertarianism. Anarchism is assumed to be "left", while Libertarianism is assumed to be "right". However, on the one-dimensional spectrum, anarchism shares almost the same position as various forms of Marxism, which is obviously inappropriate. Anarchism implies the rejection of government and societal control (as well as private property), while Leninism and other forms of Marxism imply the control by society of many activities. At the other end of the left/right line, Libertarianism finds itself in the same position as fascism, which is equally inappropriate. In order to address these problems, a number of proposals have been made for a two-axis system, which combines two models of the political spectrum as axes. === Eysenck model === The first person to devise such a two-axis system was Hans Eysenck in his 1964 book "Sense and Nonsense in Psychology." Starting with the traditional "left-right" spectrum Eysenck added a vertical axis that considered "tough-mindedness" (authoritarian tendencies) and "tender-mindedness" (democratic tendencies). The effect of this new axis is that those who have very different views with regard to authority, but have the same "left-right" view (people like Stalin and Noam Chomsky), can be distinguished. Similarly, one may wish to consider public/private property issues on the horizontal axis, and a spectrum from individual control of society to collective (or state) control of society on the vertical axis. === Nolan chart === [[Image:2d_political_spectrum.png|thumb|230px|left|Nolan chart]]A second chart is the Nolan chart, created by libertarian David Nolan, with an economic and political axes, perpendicular to each other, often with the whole chart rotated 45 degrees. This chart shows what he considers as "economic freedom" (issues like taxation, free trade and free enterprise) on the x axis and what he considers as "personal freedom" (issues like drug legalization, abortion and the Conscription) on the y axis. This puts Left-wing_politicss in the left quadrant, libertarianisms in the top, Right-wing_politicss in the right, and authoritarianism or Communitarianism (whom Nolan originally named populism) in the bottom. In the Nolan chart, the traditional left-right spectrum forms a diagonal across the plane, with communism and fascism both in the ultra-communitarian corner of the plane (which is hotly disputed by more liberal-minded communists who do not advocate state control over matters of "personal freedom"). Because of the economic left/right positions being the x axis, and political/social freedoms being on the y axis, the Nolan chart and Eysenck's chart are notable for maintaining all left-wing positions, from Anarchism to Stalinism on the left half of the chart, and all right-wing positions, from Fascism to Libertarianism, on the right half of the chart. These orientations avoid the three key problems of the Nolan chart, which places the standard left-right postions as a diagonal, groups together idealogies such as Socialism and Fascism together under the term Populist, and uses terminology (high political freedom and economic freedom) for Libertarians which are also claimed by Libertarian Socialism. The Nolan Chart has been reoriented and visually represented in many forms since David Nolan first created it, with the various representations all combining an axis for economic freedom with an axis for personal freedom. It has been the inspiration for an endless array of political self-quizzes, many of which are available over the Internet. Perhaps the most famous of these is the model used by the Political Compass organization, which also runs an online quiz placing one on the chart. === Pournelle Chart === A third, very different, two axis model was created by Jerry Pournelle. The Pournelle Chart has liberty (a dimension similar to the diagonal of the Nolan chart, with those on the left seeking liberty and those on the right focusing control, farthest right being state worship, farthest left being the idea of a state as the "ultimate evil") perpendicular to Rationalism, the belief in the power of one's political philosophy of choice (with those on the top believing that all the evils their ideology attempts to fight would go away if only their ideals were instituted, 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). "Leftist" ideologies, such as (American) liberalism, socialism and communism, tend to be placed in the upper right-hand quadrant of low liberty and high rationalism. Conservatism, fascism and Nazism are to be placed in the lower right hand quadrant of low liberty and low rationalism. Classical anarchists are in the lower left hand corner of high liberty and low rationalism. Libertarians and Objectivists are placed in the upper lefthand corner of high liberty and high rationalism. Note that this two-axis model lacks some nuances as to what is referred to as "control". For example, one may wish to divide the question into issues of personal freedom, and other issues. For instance, up into the 20th century, the United States gave a significant leeway to its citizens with respect to security (right to bear arms...) while at the same time heavily regulating sexual activities, even between adults in private (Comstock Law, sodomy laws...). === Other models === In its January 2, 2003 issue, ''The Economist'' introduced a chart to plot cultural ideology onto two dimensions. On the y-axis it covered issues of tradition and religion, like patriotism, abortion, euthanasia and the importance of obedience the law and authority figures. At the bottom of the chart is the ''traditionalist'' position on issues like these (with loyalty to country and family and respect for life considered important), while at the top is the ''secular'' position. The x-axis deals with self-expression, issues like everyday conduct and dress, acceptance of diversity and innovation, and attitudes towards people with specific controversial lifestyles such as homosexuality and vegetarianism. At the right of the chart is the open ''self-expressionist'' position, while at the left is its opposite position, which ''The Economist'' calls ''survivalist''. This chart not only has the power to map the values of individuals, but also to compare the values of people in different countries. Placed on this chart, European Union countries in continental Europe come out on the top right, Anglophone and Latin American countries on the bottom right, African, Middle Eastern and South Asian countries on the bottom left, and ex-Communist countries on the top left. In addition to the distinctions between different types of "control" on many of these spectra, there is no clear way to locate philosophies such as feminism or environmentalism, even using a two-axis spectrum. Additional dimensions would be required to accommodate them, and that would make the model far too complex to be of any use. As an example, there are even some ''three'' axis models, both based on the Nolan Chart. The Friesian Institute has suggested a model that combines the economic liberty and personal liberty axes with positive liberty, creating a cube. The Vosem Chart splits the economic axis of the Nolan chart into two axes, corporate economics and individual economics, which combine with the civil liberty axis to form a cube. == Suggested Reading == ''Maximum Liberty'' by Anonymous. 2003. (ISBN 0974443905) This nonpartisan book is possibly the first to provide a clear and concise overview of the different models of the political spectrum. The author proposes a new, universal model for the political spectrum and explains why the various existing models are inadequate. The book's most original and significant contribution to political theory, however, is the idea that the ''scope'' of government must be considered separately from the ''form'' of government. In other words, the political spectrum only describes potential levels of government control over society, not forms of rulership and administrative organization. This clears up much of the confusion surrounding the concept of the political spectrum and, in the process, provides a good introduction to politics in general. ''Beyond Liberal and Conservative: Reassessing the Political Spectrum'' by William S. Maddox and Stuart A. Lilie; foreword by David Boaz. Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute, 1984. (ISBN 0932790437) This book was apparently one of the first to suggest that the world needs a better model of the political spectrum. Regrettably, the authors are heavily biased in favor of the American libertarian concept of a two-axis model. Although the book provides a good introduction to the libertarian model, the authors offer no real critique of the model and fail to adequately address competing models. ==See also== * List of politics-related topics * Nolan chart * Political Compass * Spectrum * Left-right politics == External links == * [http://www.politicalcompass.org/ The Political Compass] * [http://www.federalistjournal.com/spectrum.php Alternate Spectrum - American Federalist Journal] * [http://www.self-gov.org/wspq.html World's Smallest Political Quiz] * [http://www.baen.com/chapters/axes.htm The Pournelle Political Axes - All Ends of the Spectrum] * [http://www.friesian.com/quiz.htm Friesian Institute] * [http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/redefining_the_political_spectru.htm Redefining the Political Spectrum] * [http://www.originmap.org Origin Map] * [http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/6/14/45425/6208 Vosem Chart] Political partiesElections Politics
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
Words begining with Political_spectrum:
Political_Spectrum
Political_spectrum
Political_spectrum
Political_spectrum/Archive_1
Political Spectrum
#REDIRECT Political spectrum
Political spectrum
==Archive== /Archive 1 == New Model == http://www.originmap.org/ Actually, I made it. User:Juan Ponderas 08:04, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC) :Seems similar to the 3-d model of the Friesian Institute. Have you checked that out? Follow the external link. :Harvestdancer ::Uh... that doesn't seem too similar. User:Juan Ponderas 00:34, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC) :::The originmap site should at least be admissable in the more permissive external links section with an explanatory title or phrase. It captures a different concept than the Friesian site.--User:Silverback 21:19, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC) ::::Well, I was going to add it to the main article, but I was waiting to finish the site. But yeah, a comment would be good for now. User:Juan Ponderas 22:50, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC) ::::: Ah yes, I see the difference. Technically you have four axes - negative economic, negative social, positive economic, positive social. User:Harvestdancer 22:58, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) ::::::I do? I'm not sure how. User:Juan Ponderas 23:54, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC) ::::::: Who has the power, how much power they have. That's 2. Both apply to economic or civil, that's 2. 2x2=4.User:Harvestdancer 23:20, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC) ::::::::(Please, Ignore this comment, see below).I suppose you could splice it into four, though I see know reason why. But the terms, positive and negative, is where I was thrown off. It sounds like a reference to positive and negative rights, but that is more along the lines of the Nolan Chart. While we're discussing this, can you think of any good names for my chart? User:Juan Ponderas 03:15, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC) ::::::::Oh, I see what you mean. I guess I associated positive liberty with positive rights, and didn't see what you meant by that, or how the Friesian model is similar. User:Juan Ponderas 02:24, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC) Examining it more closely, I think I was wrong. It seems you are using only 2 axes, to cover both the amount of power and who holds the power, making the assertion that if you are in between majority and minority, you are close to libertarian. That's an assertion that needs work though. User:Harvestdancer 21:20, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC) :Well, you have that assertion dead-on. And yes, it needs work. Unlike the Friesian Institute, I'm prepared to go to war to promote my chart, but the most important thing is to develope the reasoning behind the assertions I'm making. To that end I'm setting up a [http://www.originmap.org/library/index.php?title=Main_Page Wiki]. Nearly all articles are unstarted, and the look is not at all finished, but when those are done I will submit my site to the search engines, something I haven't done, and start checking around some sites in an attempt to get some small community involved. Essentially, I need to prove two things. First, that authoritarians and communitarians advocate different agendas on a wide range of issues. If the standard for political models is that they must not place different ideologies in the same place, this discounts the Nolan Chart. Then the assertion you stated, to prove it over the Friesian model. And some other interesting ones, like how historical movements follow a more or less straight line on my chart but make a wierd u-turn on the Nolan and a V on the Friesian. And of course, building a test to exceed Political Compass's; that shouldn't be hard, they labeled me as a libertarian. As it is, my site looks nicer than theirs. Hope this wasn't too far off subject... User:Juan Ponderas 05:02, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC) == "Westernized Political Spectrum" == The recently added section Westernized Political Spectrum strikes me as almost completely incoherent. Maybe I'm just tired, but I doubt it. I don't want to just delete this in case there is something coherent here. Could someone besides its author take a good look at it and respond here? -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 07:35, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC) :It brings two important ideas to the table, but needs rewritten. The two important ideas are: #Non-Western countries have a different left-right paradigm (China is an especially good example) #Extremists have more in common w each other than they do w either the left ''or'' the right (i.e. extremists tend towards revolution, anarchy, and totalitarianism). : 11:59, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC) ::Do you want to try rewriting accordingly? And would you agree that the section header is wrong? -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 19:12, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC) ::: Ick, no. This doesn't deserve a whole section. It deserves a bullet under Political_spectrum#Alternative_spectra as the Reactionary - Radical axis. Now why he is calling it "westernized" needs explanation. Yes, different areas have a different left-right paradigm, which is why "Alternative Spectra" doesn't mention left or right. User:Harvestdancer 23:04, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC) ===How about this?=== *Change versus Tradition: ''Radical'' (who believe in rapid change) vs. ''Reactionary'' (who believe in no change) User:Harvestdancer 23:07, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC) :Looks good, a discussion of Positive liberty / negative liberty would be good as well. 23:17, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC) I would not say it is at all true that reactionaries "believe in no change". Very often they are trying to restore a real or imagined ''status quo ante'', which requires a great deal of change. For example, the few remaining outright white supremacists in the US South are reactionaries who wish to make enormous changes. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 01:39, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC) :Agreed. The nature of reactionary politics -- including much of what is called "conservatism" today -- is to recreate an ideal that is believed to be represented in the past. For instance, the American "pro-family" movement seeks to recreate the ideal they see in post-WWII, pre-"sexual revolution" nuclear families. Whether this ideal ''ever existed'' is not in the argument. :The reactionary differs from the revolutionary chiefly in that the former claims to be looking backward and the latter forward. The former claims to be re-establishing old values which have been lost in the present day, while the latter claims to be overthrowing old values which have ill held on in the present day. The depth and collateral damage of the changes they propose do not differ. --User:Fubar Obfusco 01:54, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) ::Actually, look into anarcho-primitivism, if you get far enough to one extreme, you tend to end up on the other side ;) 11:55, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) :::On that note, I want to mention that I don't see a sharp distinction between those who want a centralized economy run by the state, and those who advocate absolute laissez-faire capitalism, meaning businesses can grow and merge until they BECOME the state... User:DanielCristofani 06:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) ===Conservative vrs. Liberal?=== Hm, I'm not sure on "conservative" and "liberal". It seems to me that "radical" and "reactionary" might work better. Liberal and conservative require a disambugation as you are using traditional definitions instead of political definitions on a political page. That's not very ... useful. Also, this is the "Alternative spectra" section, not the "right left" section. Liberals and conservatives might find these designations to be POV. User:Harvestdancer 07:11, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) :Well, I did it the way I did in order to sidestep the problem of radicalism / revolutionism vs. reactionary. I don't see these groups as different, certainly not in their practices, and not really in their rhetoric either. For example, these groups tend to favor localism, Anti-Globalism, Anti-Zionism (indeed both the extreme left and right are often accused of being anti-semitic), and anti-statism in their rhetoric. Frankly I don't see substantial difference between the two, except in how they are viewed by outsiders, and hence who turns up at their meetings (altho both militias and green party meetings have alot of long hairs / mullets, and old beat up military clothing ;) 11:55, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC) == Fascism == It is apparent that nobody likes Fascism, because those who would describe themselves as "right wing" would prefer to place Fascism on the left while those who would describe themselves as "left wing" would prefer to place Fascism on the right. Traditionally it is listed as Right Wing Socialism. Perhaps using the phrase "and also Fascism" instead of "and Fascism" will soften to tone, or adding commentary as to it's disputed but traditional placement.User:Harvestdancer 16:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) == Revision of multiaxis section == Portrayed that way, the Political compass does look more like the Eysenck model. I think, though, it is just a clever illusison. Take a look at this model on their [http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/images/bothaxes.gif website]. This version has the axes drawn in, economic and social. That is identical to the Nolan chart. Your version, and the one they use later on the site, use the resulting ideologies as axes in themselves, which is just another representation of the Nolan chart. Furthermore, I think we need an actual image of the Eysenck model. The one beside it, described below as 'similar', is actually very different. They both have a left-right axis, but in the Eysenck model the second axis is between democracy and authoritarianism- essentially, the 'political liberty' axis of the Friesian chart. This is very, very different from the axis between government control and libertarianism portrayed in the current image. User:Juan Ponderas 22:52, 8 May 2005 (UTC) :I don't think we're arguing about the facts, just the interpretations of those facts. Yes, the PC chart is a different orientation of the Nolan, which is a different orientation of the Eysenck. At least on a two-dimensional axis, there are only so many ways you can chart political ideology. That different orientation in and of itself, in my opinion, makes it noticeably different. Last, I think that the results show that this different orientation is important. Taking the Nolan test, I land quite deeply in the left-wing [labeled "liberal" by the test I was directed to] quadrant. In the PC test, which has a left-wing half, I land in the Left-Libertarian side. Such a discrepancy in terms [I'm reminded of the "liberal-minded communist" quotation in the article], at least, should warrant the 1-2 paragraphs on the PC that I added, and the additional paragraph on the Nolan I added, which mentioned the left-right diagonal, et al. :I should say, however, that for the above, I'm going by the Wikipedia picture of the Eysenck. If it's inaccurate, which I suppose it may very well be, can you offer a more (or the) correct picture? But I don't think that Government vs. Individual Decision [current] is much different than democracy vs. authoritarianism [correct]. User:Bloodsorr0w 20:28, 10 May 2005 ::I wouldn't equate the PC's chart with their test; the latter is sometimes grossly inaccurate- how they can label me a libertarian is almost beyond my imagination. ::That being said, there is a significant difference between the two axes. 'Democracy versus authoritarianism' concerns views on who should rule. 'Government vs. individual decision' refers to the amount of power exercised by that government. The two do not correspond, at least directly. Advocates of collective decisisons or government power can easily be democratic or authoritarian. ::The Eysenck model simply adds the dimension of political liberty to the traditional left-right axis. Thus, it results in distinguishment, for example, between democratic leftists and authoritarian leftists. It does not distinguish between social issues and economic, and ideologies such as libertarianism that are niether liebral or conservative on both have no place on it. ::On the Nolan Chart, government power is split into two axes, social and economic. This does allow libertarians and other philosophies to be placed. It doesn't address at all political liberty, and whether one believes government should be democratic or authoritarian. ::I had never heard of the Eysenck model before this article. I made a quick chart of the model as described by the article (thus, it is not terribly aesthetically pleasing yet). I was unsure how to approach placing ideologies on, and left them out. ::::User:Juan Ponderas 03:04, 13 May 2005 (UTC) That model mentioned in the Eysenck section, which is pictured- do we know the creator of the chart? User:Juan Ponderas === Vosem Question and Pournelle Question === I asked, before the archive, if the Vosem Chart should still be included here. Since the archive happened before anyone responded, I'll bring it upagain. Yes, it's one person's article on a webpage, but it is interesting. It certainly doesn't merit a separate Wikipedia article, and the separate article was deleted, but perhaps it does deserve one or two lines near the end of Multi-Axis Models and an external link.User:Harvestdancer 18:17, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC) :I'd have no problem with that, but I can see a "slippery slope" argument... -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 18:28, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC) ::True, but slippery slope is a fallacy. I have long been annoyed w the removal of the Vosem chart, and its page, and would appreciate and support its mention here. Cheers, 15:50, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC) ::I too agree it should be included. It's not as if there are obvious flaws in the chart's logic, and in my opinion it is more sensible than certain other charts mentioned. And it is interesting, to a degree. User:Juan Ponderas 03:51, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC) :::Well, we are started down the same road that got Vosem deleted last time. Someone put brackets around it to make a page out of it, which if someone writes it will soon get deleted as the only reference is the article by the creator of the chart just like last time. I removed the brackets, making it plain test again. It deserves mention here, and we've linked to the article, but Vosem still doesn't warrant it's own article.User:Harvestdancer 22:47, 13 May 2005 (UTC) ::::I'm curious: if the Vosem chart and most other models are not to have individual pages, why then does the Pournelle chart have its own? It doesn't seem remarkable in any way, and returns ~220 hits on google as opposed to Vosem's near thousand. Should it's contents be moved to this article? User:Juan Ponderas 23:45, 15 May 2005 (UTC) :::::You make a good point. You should nominate it for combining it into this page.User:Harvestdancer 22:01, 18 May 2005 (UTC) :::::I meant to hit "preview" to see what it would look like, and saved instead, combining most of the data from Pournelle_Chart into this article. I guess I just took the first step towards consolidating the pages.User:Harvestdancer 22:07, 18 May 2005 (UTC) :Pournelle_Chart survived the Vote for Deletion. Yay! Even though I nominated it, I approve of keeping it. Now we might proceed with recreating the Vosem page. User:Harvestdancer 16:35, 31 May 2005 (UTC) == An uncited definition == Someone recently added text claiming that one of the definitions of the left/right contrast is "Whether it is best to subsidise the weak (left) or strong (right)." There is no citation for this, and it sounds propagandistic. If no one can provide a citation in the next 48 hours, I intend to delete it. -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 05:28, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC) It probably deserves to be removed for being uncited - but how exactly is it "propagandistic"? Do you think that POV is somehow less truthful than the others presented? User:Matturn 10:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) I've removed it. As for why propagandistic: no one on the right would overtly say "we believe in subsidizing the strong". -- User:Jmabel | User talk:Jmabel 23:02, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC) ==Theory== 1,790,000 Google hits for political+spectrum+theory; it is in fact a theory, not unlike evolution or creationism with its dissenters from primary premises & validity. User:Nobs01 21:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC) ==POV== The section about the Pournelle Chart makes a very POV statement when it labels anarchists as "given to tossing bombs around for the fun of it". As an anarchist I find this offensive. I have never been violent and definetly never would be for the fun of it, and neither would any other true anarchists. Some anarchists engage in political violence which they deem necessary, but it is not a matter of "fun". And to characterize all anarchists as violent is incredibly ignorant. Perhaps a better way of describing anarchists on the Pounelle Chart would be to define more what Pournelle means by "rational" and "irrational" and come up with a better reason why anarchists are supposedly irrational. (By: Upset anarchist 1:08 am, June 23 2005, Pacific Standard time)
Political spectrum
The political spectrum theory is a way of comparing or visualizing different politics positions, by placing them upon one or more geometry axis. === Determining political spectra === The key assumption of such a spectrum is that people's views on many issues correlate strongly, or that one essential issue subsumes or dominates all others. For a political spectrum to exist, there must be range of beliefs. Political systems in which most people fall clearly into one group or another with almost no one in between, such as most nationalist controversies, are not well described by a political spectrum. In a modern Islamic country, for instance, a political spectrum might be divided along the issue of the clergy's role in government. Those who believe clerics should have the power to enforce Islamic law are on one end of the spectrum, those who support a secular society are on the other; moderates fall at various points in between. In Republic of China, the political spectrum is defined in terms of Chinese reunification versus Taiwan independence. Even in issues of nationalism, spectra can exist; for example, in the Basque Country of Spain, Basque nationalists range from the EAJ/PNV, who have engaged in coalition governments with both the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party and the conservative People's Party (Spain), to ETA, which engage in terror tactics and armed struggle against the Spanish national government, which they view as an occupying power. Political spectra can end when one group wins so thoroughly that there is no longer a divergence of opinions. This occurred in the 1970s during the Cultural Revolution in the People's Republic of China in the case between the rightists and the leftists in which the leftists won, or in the late 18th century controversy between the Federalists and the Anti-federalists in the United States. Often in this situation the winners start disagreeing over new issues, and a new political spectrum is created. In some cases, the defeated side can re-appear after several years or several decades, and start the controversy anew. At other times the political spectrum remains, while the issues which define the spectrum change. The controversy over the selection of William of Orange's successor to the English throne helped to define the British political spectrum which exists to this day, long after the original controversy was resolved. In some cases, especially in democratic countries without a "first past the post" system, multiple spectra can co-exist. For example, from it's founding in 1901 to 1909, the Commonwealth of Australia had two equally strong policial spectra - Free Trade vs. Protectionism and Workers vs. Bosses . However, by 1909 the first continuum had become irrelevent, and the two leading parties of each idea (Free Trade Party and Protectionist Party) merged to become the Commonwealth Liberal Party , in order to better compete with the strong workers' party (Australian Labor Party). This second continuum remained dominant in federal Australian politics until the mid-1990's. == Left and Right == ''See main article Left-Right politics'' In modern Western countries, the political spectrum usually is described along Left-wing politics-Right-wing politics lines. This traditional political spectrum is defined along an axis with conservatism, theocracy, and fascism ("the right") on one end, and socialism and communism ("the left") on the other. In North America and Europe, the term Political liberal refers to a wide range of political viewpoints which can not easily be categorized as "left" or "right". Classical European liberalism developed as a reaction to the status quo of monarchical rule. This vein of thought, which emphasized the rights of the individual versus the state, was incorporated somewhat into American conservatism, where the growing federal government is perceived as the threat to the individual, but also somewhat into American liberalism, depending on the issue. For example, American conservatives have a stronger belief in private property, while liberals believe in the individual's right to an abortion without government intervention. Both sides claim to be more for religious freedom than the other. The terms left and right were also used to describe politics in China starting in the 1920s until the 1980s, although the issues were often very different from those in Western nations. ===Multiplicity of interpretation of the left-right axis=== There are various different opinions about what is actually being measured along this axis: * Whether the government's involvement with the economy should be interventionist/socialist (left) or laissez-faire/capitalist (right). This was the most prominent distinction in much of the world outside the US for most of the 20th century. * Whether the state should prioritize equality (left) or liberty (right). This was proposed by Danielle Allen. [http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041220&c=7&s=forum] * Whether the state should prioritize social liberty (left) or economic liberty (right). * Whether the government's involvement with moral issues should be minimal (left) or interventionist (right). * 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). * In budgeting and financial priorities, tending to promote economic security (left) or economic freedom (right). * Fair outcomes (left) versus fair processes (right). This was proposed by Australian Labor Party leader Mark Latham. * 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. * Whether people should be more motivated by empathy (left) or direct self-interest (right). ===Historical origin of the terms=== The terms ''Left'' and ''Right'' to refer to political affiliation originated early in the French Revolutionary era, and referred originally to the seating arrangements in the Glossary of the French Revolution#Governmental structures of France. The aristocracy sat on the right of the Speaker (traditionally the seat of honor) and the commoners sat on the Left, hence the terms Right-wing politics and Left-wing politics. Originally, the defining point on the ideological spectrum was the ''ancien régime'' ("old order"). "The Right" thus implied support for aristocratic or royal interests, while "The Left" implied opposition to the same. Because the political franchise at the start of the revolution was relatively narrow, the original "Left" represented mainly the interests of the bourgeoisie, the rising capitalist class. At that time, support for laissez-faire capitalism and Free markets were counted as being on the left; today in most Western countries these views would be characterized as being on the Right. As the franchise expanded over the next several years, it became clear that there was something to the left of that original "Left": the precursors of socialism and communism, advocating the interests of wage-earners and peasants. ==Alternative spectra == Some people feel that it is not obvious how these various concepts are related. They say that it is very confusing to speak of the right or the left without indicating what exactly you are referring to. They believe that one should first establish context by defining the axes upon which different positions will be measured. Nonetheless, the right-left spectrum is so common as to be taken for granted. Many people even have a hard time conceptualizing any alternative to it. However, numerous alternatives exist, usually having been developed by people who feel their views are not fairly represented on the traditional right-left spectrum. Perhaps the simplest alternative to the left-right spectrum was devised as a rhetorical tool during the Cold War. This was a circle which brought together the far right and left ends of the traditional spectrum, equating "extreme socialism" (i.e. the Communist Party) with "extreme conservatism" (i.e. Fascism). This nexus was particularly useful to those opposed to rapprochement with the Soviet Union. Another alternative spectrum offered by the conservative ''American Federalist Journal'' emphasizes the degree of political control, and thus places totalitarianism at one extreme and anarchism (no government at all) at the other extreme. Yet another alternative, currently popular among certain environmentalists, uses a single axis to measure what they consider to be the good of the Earth against the good of big business, which is seen as being the force most likely to harm the earth. In 1998, political author Virginia Postrel, in her book ''The Future and Its Enemies'', offered a new single axis spectrum that measures one's view of the future. On one extreme are those who allegedly fear the future and wish to control it, whom Postrel calls ''stasists''. On the other hand are those who want the future to unfold naturally and without attempts to plan and control, for whom she uses the name ''dynamists''. Other axes that might merit consideration include: *Role of the church: ''Clericalism'' vs. ''Anti-clericalism''. This axis is not significant in the United States where views of the role of religion tend to get subsumed into the general left-right axis, but in Europe clericalism versus anti-clericalism is much less correlated with the left-right spectrum. *Urban vs. rural: This axis is also much more significant in European as well as Australian and Canadian politics than American. *Foreign policy: ''interventionism'' (the nation should exert power abroad to implement its policy) vs. ''isolationism'' (the nation should keep to its own affairs) *Market policy: ''socialism'' (government should democratize or control economic productivity) vs. ''laissez-faire'' (government should leave the market alone) vs. ''corporatism'' (government should subsidize or support existing successful businesses) *Political violence: ''pacifism'' (political views should not be imposed by violent force) vs. ''militant'' (violence is a legitimate or necessary means of political expression). In North America, holders of these views are often referred to as "doves" and "War hawk", respectively. *Foreign trade: ''globalization'' (world economic markets should become integrated and interdependent) vs. ''autarky'' (the nation or polity should strive for economic independence). During the early history of the Commonwealth of Australia, this was the major political continuum. Then it was called ''Free trade'' vs. ''Protectionism''. *Diversity: ''multiculturalism'' (the nation should represent a diversity of cultural ideas) vs. ''assimilationism'' or ''nationalism'' (the nation should represent the dominant ethnic group) *Participation: ''Democracy'' (rule of the majority) vs. ''Oligarchy'' (rule by a limited number of people) vs. ''Republic'' (a compromise between the two - this is a specialised use of the term republic based on an interpretation of classical history) *Freedom: ''Positive liberty'' (Having ''rights'' which obligate others) vs. ''Negative liberty'' (Freedom from interference by others) *Progress: ''radical'' (who believe in rapid change) vs. ''Conservatives'' (who believe in minimal or cautious change) == Multi-axis models == A one-axis model is highly over-simplified, and lumps together fairly different political propositions; in particular, as seen before, there are many ways to define the left-right spectrum, which do not yield the same classifications. Several of the political philosophies that have arisen over the past two centuries do not fit on the one-dimensional left/right line, in particular anarchism and libertarianism. Anarchism is assumed to be "left", while Libertarianism is assumed to be "right". However, on the one-dimensional spectrum, anarchism shares almost the same position as various forms of Marxism, which is obviously inappropriate. Anarchism implies the rejection of government and societal control (as well as private property), while Leninism and other forms of Marxism imply the control by society of many activities. At the other end of the left/right line, Libertarianism finds itself in the same position as fascism, which is equally inappropriate. In order to address these problems, a number of proposals have been made for a two-axis system, which combines two models of the political spectrum as axes. === Eysenck model === The first person to devise such a two-axis system was Hans Eysenck in his 1964 book "Sense and Nonsense in Psychology." Starting with the traditional "left-right" spectrum Eysenck added a vertical axis that considered "tough-mindedness" (authoritarian tendencies) and "tender-mindedness" (democratic tendencies). The effect of this new axis is that those who have very different views with regard to authority, but have the same "left-right" view (people like Stalin and Noam Chomsky), can be distinguished. Similarly, one may wish to consider public/private property issues on the horizontal axis, and a spectrum from individual control of society to collective (or state) control of society on the vertical axis. === Nolan chart === [[Image:2d_political_spectrum.png|thumb|230px|left|Nolan chart]]A second chart is the Nolan chart, created by libertarian David Nolan, with an economic and political axes, perpendicular to each other, often with the whole chart rotated 45 degrees. This chart shows what he considers as "economic freedom" (issues like taxation, free trade and free enterprise) on the x axis and what he considers as "personal freedom" (issues like drug legalization, abortion and the Conscription) on the y axis. This puts Left-wing_politicss in the left quadrant, libertarianisms in the top, Right-wing_politicss in the right, and authoritarianism or Communitarianism (whom Nolan originally named populism) in the bottom. In the Nolan chart, the traditional left-right spectrum forms a diagonal across the plane, with communism and fascism both in the ultra-communitarian corner of the plane (which is hotly disputed by more liberal-minded communists who do not advocate state control over matters of "personal freedom"). Because of the economic left/right positions being the x axis, and political/social freedoms being on the y axis, the Nolan chart and Eysenck's chart are notable for maintaining all left-wing positions, from Anarchism to Stalinism on the left half of the chart, and all right-wing positions, from Fascism to Libertarianism, on the right half of the chart. These orientations avoid the three key problems of the Nolan chart, which places the standard left-right postions as a diagonal, groups together idealogies such as Socialism and Fascism together under the term Populist, and uses terminology (high political freedom and economic freedom) for Libertarians which are also claimed by Libertarian Socialism. The Nolan Chart has been reoriented and visually represented in many forms since David Nolan first created it, with the various representations all combining an axis for economic freedom with an axis for personal freedom. It has been the inspiration for an endless array of political self-quizzes, many of which are available over the Internet. Perhaps the most famous of these is the model used by the Political Compass organization, which also runs an online quiz placing one on the chart. === Pournelle Chart === A third, very different, two axis model was created by Jerry Pournelle. The Pournelle Chart has liberty (a dimension similar to the diagonal of the Nolan chart, with those on the left seeking liberty and those on the right focusing control, farthest right being state worship, farthest left being the idea of a state as the "ultimate evil") perpendicular to Rationalism, the belief in the power of one's political philosophy of choice (with those on the top believing that all the evils their ideology attempts to fight would go away if only their ideals were instituted, 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). "Leftist" ideologies, such as (American) liberalism, socialism and communism, tend to be placed in the upper right-hand quadrant of low liberty and high rationalism. Conservatism, fascism and Nazism are to be placed in the lower right hand quadrant of low liberty and low rationalism. Classical anarchists are in the lower left hand corner of high liberty and low rationalism. Libertarians and Objectivists are placed in the upper lefthand corner of high liberty and high rationalism. Note that this two-axis model lacks some nuances as to what is referred to as "control". For example, one may wish to divide the question into issues of personal freedom, and other issues. For instance, up into the 20th century, the United States gave a significant leeway to its citizens with respect to security (right to bear arms...) while at the same time heavily regulating sexual activities, even between adults in private (Comstock Law, sodomy laws...). === Other models === In its January 2, 2003 issue, ''The Economist'' introduced a chart to plot cultural ideology onto two dimensions. On the y-axis it covered issues of tradition and religion, like patriotism, abortion, euthanasia and the importance of obedience the law and authority figures. At the bottom of the chart is the ''traditionalist'' position on issues like these (with loyalty to country and family and respect for life considered important), while at the top is the ''secular'' position. The x-axis deals with self-expression, issues like everyday conduct and dress, acceptance of diversity and innovation, and attitudes towards people with specific controversial lifestyles such as homosexuality and vegetarianism. At the right of the chart is the open ''self-expressionist'' position, while at the left is its opposite position, which ''The Economist'' calls ''survivalist''. This chart not only has the power to map the values of individuals, but also to compare the values of people in different countries. Placed on this chart, European Union countries in continental Europe come out on the top right, Anglophone and Latin American countries on the bottom right, African, Middle Eastern and South Asian countries on the bottom left, and ex-Communist countries on the top left. In addition to the distinctions between different types of "control" on many of these spectra, there is no clear way to locate philosophies such as feminism or environmentalism, even using a two-axis spectrum. Additional dimensions would be required to accommodate them, and that would make the model far too complex to be of any use. As an example, there are even some ''three'' axis models, both based on the Nolan Chart. The Friesian Institute has suggested a model that combines the economic liberty and personal liberty axes with positive liberty, creating a cube. The Vosem Chart splits the economic axis of the Nolan chart into two axes, corporate economics and individual economics, which combine with the civil liberty axis to form a cube. == Suggested Reading == ''Maximum Liberty'' by Anonymous. 2003. (ISBN 0974443905) This nonpartisan book is possibly the first to provide a clear and concise overview of the different models of the political spectrum. The author proposes a new, universal model for the political spectrum and explains why the various existing models are inadequate. The book's most original and significant contribution to political theory, however, is the idea that the ''scope'' of government must be considered separately from the ''form'' of government. In other words, the political spectrum only describes potential levels of government control over society, not forms of rulership and administrative organization. This clears up much of the confusion surrounding the concept of the political spectrum and, in the process, provides a good introduction to politics in general. ''Beyond Liberal and Conservative: Reassessing the Political Spectrum'' by William S. Maddox and Stuart A. Lilie; foreword by David Boaz. Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute, 1984. (ISBN 0932790437) This book was apparently one of the first to suggest that the world needs a better model of the political spectrum. Regrettably, the authors are heavily biased in favor of the American libertarian concept of a two-axis model. Although the book provides a good introduction to the libertarian model, the authors offer no real critique of the model and fail to adequately address competing models. ==See also== * List of politics-related topics * Nolan chart * Political Compass * Spectrum * Left-right politics == External links == * [http://www.politicalcompass.org/ The Political Compass] * [http://www.federalistjournal.com/spectrum.php Alternate Spectrum - American Federalist Journal] * [http://www.self-gov.org/wspq.html World's Smallest Political Quiz] * [http://www.baen.com/chapters/axes.htm The Pournelle Political Axes - All Ends of the Spectrum] * [http://www.friesian.com/quiz.htm Friesian Institute] * [http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/redefining_the_political_spectru.htm Redefining the Political Spectrum] * [http://www.originmap.org Origin Map] * [http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/6/14/45425/6208 Vosem Chart] Political partiesElections Politics
See other meanings of words starting from letter:
P
PA | PB | PC | PD | PE | PF | PG | PH | PI | PJ | PK | PL | PM | PN | PO | PR | PS | PT | PU | PW | PX | PY | PZ |Words begining with Political_spectrum:
Political_Spectrum
Political_spectrum
Political_spectrum
Political_spectrum/Archive_1
These materials are based on Wikipedia and licensed under the GNU FDL
YouTube.com videos better site than Turbo Tax 2007
