Posted on 02/11/2016 12:02:09 PM PST by Torcert
This is a short dissertation on the Real political spectrum, Each step of the way will be confirmed by the dictionary definitions of the various political ideologies and how they relate to the spectrum.
In order to properly set it out in a logical manner we need to base it on the metric of governmental power since this should be the clearest method of distinguishing where the ideologies fall on the spectrum.
1. Government Control scale.
For the sake of simplicity we will use a scale of %0 to %100 with zero for no governmental control and ranging up to 100 for total government control. Since its generally axiomatic that Conservatives and Libertarians favour Limited and lesser government it will start with zero on the Right end of the scale. And by the same token the tendency of the left is for increased government control and thus the Left end will be %100 governmental control.
2. Defining the ends of the scale.
The zero point will clearly correspond to the ideological condition of anarchy.
Full Definition of ANARCHYWhile the 100 point corresponding to the condition of a Total government Control:
1a : absence of government
b : a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority
c : a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government
2 a : absence or denial of any authority or established order
b : absence of order : disorder not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker
Origin of ANARCHY
Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler
First Known Use: 1539
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anarchy
Definition of TOTALITARIAN3. Now that we have established those data points we can examine what occurs as one moves along the scale from right to left
1a : of or relating to centralized control by an autocratic leader or hierarchy : authoritarian, dictatorial; especially : despotic
b : of or relating to a political regime based on subordination of the individual to the state and strict control of all aspects of the life and productive capacity of the nation especially by coercive measures (as censorship and terrorism)
2a : advocating or characteristic of totalitarianism
b : completely regulated by the state especially as an aid to national mobilization in an emergency
First Known Use of TOTALITARIAN
circa 1934
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/totalitarian
The right end scale with smaller percentages of Government control would have Libertarianism followed by Conservatism.
Full Definition of LIBERTARIAN
1: an advocate of the doctrine of free will
2a : a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action
b capitalized : a member of a political party advocating libertarian principles
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/libertarianism
right wing: the part of a political group that consists of people who support conservative or traditional ideas and policies : the part of a political group that belongs to or supports the Right
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/right%20wing
Definition of CONSERVATISMMoving on towards the Left to the higher reaches of the scale corresponding to higher and higher levels of government control
1capitalized
a : the principles and policies of a Conservative party
b : the Conservative party
2 a : disposition in politics to preserve what is established
b : a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically : such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)
3: the tendency to prefer an existing or traditional situation to change
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conservatism
left wing: the part of a political group that consists of people who support liberal or socialist ideas and policies : the part of a political group that belongs to or supports the Left
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/left%20wing
Definition of SOCIALISM
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
First Known Use of SOCIALISM
1837
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
Full Definition of FASCISM
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control early instances of army fascism and brutality — J. W. Aldridge
Origin of FASCISM
Italian fascismo, from fascio bundle, fasces, group, from Latin fascis bundle & fasces fasces
First Known Use: 1921
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism
Definition of COMMUNISMThus we have set out a basic scale of the real political spectrum backed up by the factual definitions of the various points on the scale. While there may be disagreements with regard to the specific locations where a particular ideology will fall, the overall sequence will still be sound.
1a : a theory advocating elimination of private property
b : a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
2capitalized
a : a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics
b : a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production
c : a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably
d : communist systems collectively
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/communism
When it comes to any federal act, you only need to ask yourself one question: "Is it Constitutional?" If challenged, you can add, "Well is it, Punk ?"
“lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)”
How’s that for a working definition?
Bookmark
Well, the main aspect we have to remember is that the Constitution restrains the Government and not the people.
Thus the primary way we can keep control from creeping up is to apply the founding documents and limit the Government.
Excellent - and clearly on the Right side of the scale.
The problem arises when comrades from the national Socialist Left like to mis-characterize wanting a ‘strong national defense’ as something else in an effort to muddy the waters.
And unbelievably, I’ve had some of them try to assert that socialism (moving up the government control scale in spades) will somehow yield them more freedom..... smh.
I would argue that Monarchy and Oligarchy are one in the same. You cannot keep a Monarch in power without those willing to support the Monarch, hence the Oligarchy.
Of course.
The key is reinstating the Constitution front and center against the feds as the Supreme Law of the Land and Ruler over the feds. Applying the Constitution as written and originally understood and intended, brings into high definition the illegality and invalidity of most federal government activity. The key is for Americans to reclaim and learn THEIR Constitution and THEIR political freedoms and to influence their states and elected officials to enforce the Constitution against the feds.
Yes, I would tend to agree.
The very notion of a political spectrum is crap. Every voter has a certain set of interests. Sometimes they weave a consistent political narrative through it, themselves. Sometimes politicians say, “you stand for this principle on this issue... can I get you to stand for it on this issue.” More often, voters trust a candidate of a given party on one issue, so they can be talked into agreeing on another issue. But that’s more often being a team member than a rational relationship between issues: Take for instance, the way leftists support both Islam and gay rights.
For a few, there is a persistent ideological framework to their positions. For instance, I’m very much NOT of the gun culture. But I’m very pro-2nd amendment because I’m a constitutionalist. But we true ideologues are far few and far between. And then, it’s not a spectrum; it’s just whether you believe an ideology — any of dozens — or not.
Even the most basic ideological oppositions are artifices of a binary election system. For instance, even communism isn’t antithetical to a free market; in fact, the only economic-political system that can let true communism exist is a free market.
If 1% of the money spent funding leftist ideologies were spent, instead, investing in means of production, and if the government allowed free markets, anyone who wanted to could belong to a commune by now. It’s the political structure that makes one have to be genocidal, freedom-hating statist to be a communist.
By the way, the political circle is also crap. Once people get away from the political mainstream, they can get away from the basic oppositional structure of the binary system. In doing so, they can have commonality with other ideologies associated with the either side of the binary system. A freemarketer and a communism may find less separating them than an economic neoconservative and a statist, but it’s ludicrous to say that an extremist freemarketer becomes more communistic, and merely slander to associate fascists with conservatives.
Well, you should notice that only the ends of the spectrum are numerically defined.
The other ideologies are on more of a ‘sliding scale’ as it were - with some people even in the same ideological circles being at different points on the scale.
Part of what needs to be understood is that in a relative sense most ideologies are disposed on the scale as was detailed.
Example: Communist way over on the left, Conservative over on the right.
I once had a Bernie Sander supporter try to claim that he was ‘Libertarian Socialist’ - which does not make any sense being those two ideologies are at very disparate parts of the scale. With Libertarian being of very limited government and Socialism being of big oppressive government.
That assertion by that BS supporter was like someone trying to claim to be a ‘authoritarian anarchist’.
I would agree with that circle postulation as making no sense.
For that to be the case, one would have change from full totalitarian to full anarchist at a single point on the ‘Circle’.
The Problem is that I fear that too many don’t know the source of their freedoms and can’t remember history....
What is the point?
Conservatives have misused the language, and have little credibility. The guest host on David Webb yesterday called Sanders a communist.
Conservatives frequently call people like Kasich liberal and democrat.
Reagan would not have done that, but we have come very far from Reagan.
Agreed. But I think that could be changed and I think it starts with a mass re-education in the Constitution as the basis of their political freedom and a desire to learn it.
Maybe if people saw that they have basically two choices, freedom or tyranny, they would pick political freedom and learn about the Constitution as the legal basis and protection of their political freedom the alternative being slavery to the tyranny of the feds.
I think in the Trump campaign at least, we’re seeing people snapping back at the establishment and willing to go another direction. That is a hopeful sign that many may be willing to repossess and learn the freedom that is theirs and how it is protected by the limits on the feds by the Constitution as confirmed by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
Linear scales are pretty useless for describing multi dimensional concepts. For example, there are left wing anarchists and right wing statists, neither of which fall on your line.
I’m sorry, but politics simply can’t be described in one dimension. You need at least 2 axis to accurately describe a political philosophy.
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.