Posted on 01/09/2009 5:03:28 PM PST by TheBigIf
I am basically just looking to hear some feedback to my thoughts here. I had written this last night after having a debate with some leftists that lead to the argument whether this or that dictator was leftwing or rightwing thing. I didn’t post it though.
I was surprised when this morning I saw a thread (vanity) that was very similar in regards to topic asking whether conservatives were rightwing or not.
So here is what I wrote:
First some background:
I have always wondered where the origin of the left-right political scale came from and the closest I could find out so far was that it was originated by some socialists who wanted to differentiate themselves from other socialists they were at odds with. In the legislative body this one set of socialists sat on the left side while there socialist opponents sat on the right side. Thus you had the leftwing and the rightwing. (I will look for a reference to this later or if someone could add what they know of the origin of the left-right political scale please do)
So basically it seems that it originated as a term differentiating between two different types of socialism.
This type of left-right comparison does little to define capitalism, conservatism or libertarianism at all. When I would hear that Stalin was leftwing and that Hitler was rightwing I would just scratch my head and could not understand how this could be an accurate political scale at all if both ends of the scale had big government solutions to it that became dictatorships in the end. Plus I knew that American rightwing ideologies stood for limited government and individual liberty so it made no sense at all that either of them could be rightwing by American standards.
So the question I asked myself is what should a political scale measure? All scales measure something so what should a political scale measure?
My answer was 'individual liberty'.
A True political scale should measure 'individual liberty'.
So basically the way that I define the political scale is that the further right you go then the more individual liberty you have. There is less government interference and control.
By contrast the further left along the political scale you move the less individual liberty you have. There is more government interference and control.
So to the far left you would have dictatorship, totalitarianism, fascism, communism, Marxism, etc… and more to the center you would may have some democratic socialism while to the far right you would have classic liberalism, capitalism, a representative republic and today’s conservatism, and libertarianism. I know that the way I stated the above paragraph needs some work as to how the whole scale would layout from left to right. I would like to see it worked out more correctly in this way of looking at the political scale in terms of measuring ‘individual liberty’ but haven’t worked it out yet.
I have never heard anyone define the political scale this way so I wonder if what I am saying is original or if there is already a reference to the political scale by the measure of 'individual liberty'?
Anyone know?
Any comments?
How would you answer the question below?
All scales measure something so what should a political scale measure?
You absolutely got me there. lol. Great answer!
Now, to your topic:
Think of the various political views as lying at some level on a triangle. As you travel down from the top towards the bottom, the wider the triangle gets, and more people are involved in lawmaking.
At the very top of the triangle you have one person who controls everyone else. This is textbook definition “monarchy” (mono = “one”; archy = “rule”). One ruler.
At the very bottom you have everyone who has complete autonomy over their own actions. This is textbook definition “anarchy” (an = “no”; archy = “rule”). No rulers.
I would suggest that most conservatives fall somewhere towards the lower half of the triangle. We believe that the creation of laws should be placed in many hands. I.e., The People should be allowed to rule themselves as much as possible, with the vast majority of laws that are created to be so created by the various governing bodies on the local and state level which are much more responsive to The People.
Progressives tend to believe that the power to create laws should be much higher up the triangle with power concentrated in as few officials as possible. I.e., the entire nation should be ruled from a centralized government with the right of self-government restricted as much as possible. All decisions taken out of the hands of The People and placed into the hands of the government. Think "Social Security" and "National Health Care" and "Assault Weapons Ban".
Big "L" Libertarians would generally entrust less control in the national government and less in the hands of state and local governments, pushing control into self-governance by The People themselves as much as possible.
Obviously, there are exceptions, but for the most part, I think this holds up. Progressive = less freedom = more laws created on the national level. Conservative = more individual freedom = more laws created on the local and state level.
I started to think of it as more like a circle than a line. If the center is at the top, going left or right leads to dictatorship sometime before the bottom, at which is anarchy.
“This type of left-right comparison does little to define capitalism, conservatism or libertarianism at all.”
They should not be defined by this type of comparison. They should have their own definitions and then be compared against each other or some measure outside of them.
“So the question I asked myself is what should a political scale measure?”
“All scales measure something so what should a political scale measure?”
Your questions put the cart before the horse. You don't build a scale and then figure out what to measure with it. You figure out what you want to measure and then build a scale that can measure it.
If you've got “political” you've got to figure it out, define it it you will, then build a scale to measure it. Ask “What is political?” Ask “What about political could be measured or would I like to measure?” That kind of thing.
If you want to measure “individual liberty”, you've got to define it. Some might say a savage in the forest 6000 years ago had more individual liberty than modern man because the savage was at liberty to do pretty much anything within his ability. Others would say that a modern man has more individual liberty than that savage because, even though he is not at liberty to do everything within his ability, living in a modern society gives him the ability to do much more than the savage in the forest.
Oops, sorry. I left something out.
The upshot of this description is that it shouldn’t be a Left-Right thing in the United States today. It really should be an Up-Down thing.
The higher Up the scale you are, the less you entrust power to The People (or the more you entrust power to representatives who are further removed from The People and consequently less responsive to The People).
The further Down the scale you are, the more you entrust power to The People (or to representatives of The People who are more responsive directly to The People)
“Think of the various political views as lying at some level on a triangle.”
I always thought we’d be better off with a statist/anarchist political spectrum. I imagine the scale as being linear, however, not triangular.
I agree and like the linear scale from right to left. But of course if it is not defined as to what the scale meaures you have the type of confusion that we have today whereas there are dictators to the left of us and dictators to the right.
To the right is total individual freedom and to the left is dictatorship. Fit the rest of all political ideologies and philosphies into where they go in between tese points based upon how theyt addresse individual liberty.
It seems like a straight forward way to guage political systems and agendas.
You’re right ... it is actually linear, but the triangle is a visual aid. Moving higher up the scale gives fewer people more power. Maybe I’m not doing a good job describing this.
-If you want to measure “individual liberty”, you’ve got to define it.-
This is a great point. My intial comment doesn’t do that I agree. I will give it some thought. Thanks for your post.
I enjoyed your triangle description and think it makes some sense. It is a good contribution to this thread.
Mark down next to each issue who should be ultimately empowered to make policy about the issue.
Order these levels of government according to how far control is removed from the individual and assign some number to each of these levels of government. 1 = President down to 10 = individual. Add up the numbers you have assigned to each issue and this number would give you an idea of where you lie in general on the scale.
I believe the Libertarian would say that most of these issues should be determined by the individual, so they would give 10 points to each issue for a total in the 40 to 50 range.
Typical conservatives would assign the decision making power to a combination of individuals, local, and state governments. They would come up with some number in the middle (20 - 30).
Progressives would assign more power to the Federal Congress and/or the President himself. They would come up with a much smaller number than the typical conservative, perhaps in the 5 - 20 range.
Not a perfect mathematical formula, but it might give you a tool to help your opponents understand where you are coming from.
“You’re right ... it is actually linear, but the triangle is a visual aid. Moving higher up the scale gives fewer people more power. Maybe I’m not doing a good job describing this.”
Actually, I know exactly what you mean. When I was in college, I did a speech comparing the Spartan and Athenian constitutions as normal and inverted triangles, respectively. The idea was that in Athens, the highest level of authority was granted to the largest portion of the population, and vice-versa in Sparta. Of course, that wasn’t exactly fair, since both societies excluded a majority of their populations (e.g. slaves and women) from the political process. Also, even Athens wasn’t radical enough to leave the military and religion to be led by the masses.
As regards the monarchist/anarchist political scale, I still think it would be better to use a line. There isn’t any great need to make use of a two-dimensional figure like a triangle.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.