Updated Version of an Old Rant

Two Dimensional Political Models: Why Politics Is Broken
Or
Why I Piss Everyone Off, Regardless of Their Politics

By Jack Cheiky

I've studied a lot of those two dimensional political models. Most are some version of the four quadrant type, but I've seen a triangle and another where "left" and "right" wrap around to where they almost touch. Many models use different terminology, possibly suggesting no one can exactly agree on what defines the political spectrum.

There seems to be something broken somewhere in our understanding of the political spectrum. Two things I find odd and ironic are the strange logic that so perfectly polarizes us into ambiguous, disempowered groups, and also how both sides come down so close in proximity to one another on the political chart. For example, from a strictly political perspective (not a value perspective) a radical feminist and a Christian fundamentalist aren't all that different.

The typical chart:

A~C
~X~
S~T

A = Anarchist / Libertarians
C = Capitalist
T = Totalitarian / Authoritarian
S = Socialist / Communist

I would think the natural lines of division would be drawn horizontally between those who want more freedom in more areas of their lives (above), and those who want to impose cultural laws and standards on others (below).

A~C
=X=
S~T

Oddly, what happens is the lines get bent in such a way as to pair up the capitalists with the (radically religious) authoritarians, and the socialists/communists with the would-be libertarians and anarchists, even though both of these alliances are as far as I can tell fundamentally at odds with one another. The result is two equally dichotomous and impotent polar forces.

A/S >< C/T

If the Illuminati really is out there somewhere pulling our strings, you have to admire the brilliance of this device of divide and conquer. As it is, though, I think this is something we pretty much do ourselves, even if there are those who are shrewd enough to help it along from time to time and use it to their advantage. Either way, it amounts to the same pile of beans.

The two polar ends of the spectrum (commonly Left and Right) have agendas that call for the use of the government and legal system to force their opponents into complying with their own values. This in effect bends the left-right line downward like /\ and lands them both in the bottom half of the chart, in the direction of fascism and totalitarianism, and away from freedom. It also leaves anyone with any hint at all of libertarianism (the top of the bent line) appearing like the lunatic fringe.

~~ L ~~
~~/\~~
A/S C/T

In reality most of us end up closer to the center than we do to any of our respective extremes; nobody really wants to get too far out into fanaticism. It's probably a good thing too, but there's still a problem: a lot of people have the illusion of doing something that matters when if fact little gets done, the people are saddled with a bloated government, and the powers that be have free rein.

Consider for a moment the "Right". Here we have grouped together the capitalists and the religious radicals. We've come to accept this as the natural way of things. There is a tiny shred of sense in that. If you consider that the people who wanted to conserve their wealth were largely white and largely Christian and either consciously or unconsciously wanted to conserve their cultural identity and perhaps their cultural dominance and cultural purity, then yes, the word conservative makes a tiny bit of sense.

However, I make an important distinction between a dyed in the wool capitalist, and the ruling elite. The ruling elite exist in any culture, with or without capitalism. A capitalist on the other hand believes in letting a free market work out what needs to be worked out, and letting a person rise or fall based upon their character, while the ruling elite are simply interested in using their capitol to ensure they stay the ruling elite.

An example of the dichotomy of the right is the embryonic stem cell issue. The religious radicals would outlaw harvesting the cells. Conversely, a capitalist would reject government regulation and interference in medical research. Ethical issues will always come up, but a capitalist will err on the side of too much freedom rather than too little, and allowing the market to work things out. From a capitalist's perspective, if people were significantly opposed to the research a boycott would ensue on the resultant technologies.

Now consider the "Left". Here we have lumped together the anarchist/libertarians with the socialist/communists. Again, we've come to accept this as natural, and you can piece together how this probably happened. The traditional idea of liberty from the wealthy and government rule over time got twisted into the use of the government rule to liberate the wealth. It's easy to see how that could get confusing.

Let's look at something very simple like affirmative action. The socialist/communist element sees the inequity and injustice in our culture and aims to fix the problem through government rule and legal action. On the other hand, an anarchist or even the milder libertarian would be dead set against the government imposing such rules. From that end of the spectrum the perspective is people should be allowed to figure out how to behave and get along amongst themselves.

Both ends of the spectrum are ambiguous, hence both are ineffective. While small battles are lost and won over where to draw the lines on abortion and immigration and flag burning and stem cells and gay marriage and prayer in school, the power mongers are free to do as they please because we're preoccupied with the tiny details rather than the big picture.

The religious right gets screwed because they elect leaders who pay lip service to family values and raise a fuss over things like leaving the word "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, but who lack the necessary absolute power given our diverse culture to bring about the kind of homogenized utopia they dream of, while simultaneously inflaming the opposition with the threat of forced religious rule, giving rise and power to radical elements of the "left." crystallizing stereotypes, promoting disharmony, and ultimately leading to more crime and hate and all the things opposite of what the religious right really wants; a more "Christian" environment.

The idealists of the left get screwed because in the pursuit of liberty and social justice they give more power to the government making it ripe for ineffectiveness and corruption and due to simple demographics often put power right back into the hands of the opposition, while reinforcing a disempowered oppressed victim mentality in the very people they are trying to empower.

It's not enough that we intellectually understand that we're all closer to being moderates than we are to being radical fanatics, and it's not enough that we pay lip service to being open minded. We have to be ready and willing to compromise. We have to be able to stop seeing the other guy as wrong, and ask ourselves, "Could I be wrong?" And if we can't admit that, then at least we need to ask ourselves, "What part of my agenda would I be willing to give up in exchange for some real progress in the world?"