The Political Spectrum Left-Right Paradigm

This is bullshit and incorrect.

The only people who say this are right wingers.

This is a NEW definition that idiots like Ann Coulter, Glenn Beck and Jonah Goldberg MADE UP to discredit people who they disagree with.

Fucking dipshit, you are brainwashed.

You are the one the who doesn't understand.

You fuckers are the ones who will take us down.

God damn you and your Orwellian rewriting of history.

Last Edited by monkeydog on 06/29/2011 02:10 PM

Dayum...a little hostile?

Educate me. I am open for debate, but I can't argue with accusations. Tell me how I am wrong.

I'm grown up enough to be open to being incorrect. Just show me and I will recant if you change my mind.

The way I see it, the forms of govenment fit on a linear chart better than a cube you get when one takes the political test. I think this started somewhere long before Beck, Goldberg, and Coulter were on the scene. I remember this from my days at school, and that was the early 80's.

Revisionist? maybe...I'm going to check, but this has been around at least 30 years. Certainly not NEW.

Sorry, but this topic chaps my ass.

It's not linear. Think of it as 2 circles.

One is the typical left - right paradigm. Both political philosophies, if taken to the extreme, lead to authoritarianism.

Nazis would be an example of it on the right (no matter what Glenn Beck and Jonah Goldberg say), Stalin would be an example of it on the left.

For example, the idea that the Nazis were left wing is a new idea advanced mostly by Jonah Goldberg and Glenn Beck. No credible historian or political scientist would claim this.

The other circle is the libertarian paradigm. This paradigm, taken to extremes, leads to anarchy.

An example of left wing libertarians would be Greece's Revolutionary Struggle, Randians would be an example of right wing libertarians.

This idea that "all things good" come from the right and "all things bad" come from the left is straight up brainwashing from people who are selling you an agenda (i.e. "shills").

Thanks for being patient with me.




Last Edited by monkeydog on 06/29/2011 03:39 PM

Ok, I watched the presentation.

Seems reasonable.

Lets see what you have so we can compare the two.

And then there is the -ism that no one talks bout because no one can define it, as it represents a political ideology, and is not in a state of stasis.

G-L-O-B-A-L-I-S-M

A form of government where all of the worlds resources are controlled by very few who maintain power and control by force, while maintaining the illusion of control by the constituency.

Sorry, but this topic chaps my ass.

It's not linear. Think of it as 2 circles.

One is the typical left - right paradigm. Both political philosophies, if taken to the extreme, lead to authoritarianism.

Nazis would be an example of it on the right (no matter what Glenn Beck and Jonah Goldberg say), Stalin would be an example of it on the left.

For example, the idea that the Nazis were left wing is a new idea advanced mostly by Jonah Goldberg and Glenn Beck. No credible historian or political scientist would claim this.

The other circle is the libertarian paradigm. This paradigm, taken to extremes, leads to anarchy.

An example of left wing libertarians would be Greece's Revolutionary Struggle, Randians would be an example of right wing libertarians.

This idea that "all things good" come from the right and "all things bad" come from the left is straight up brainwashing from people who are selling you an agenda (i.e. "shills").

Thanks for being patient with me.




I still haven't had time to go find those old college books, but I will...

Where I disagree with the modern (or not so modern) concept is that Nazism isn't 'right'. It's state controlled economy and single party rule. Whereas capitalism, a modern right wing cornerstone, is the opposite. Likewise, on the the modern right espouse less goverment, also opposite nazism. Even the name comes from national socialist party, though a German rendering. I can't wrap my head around why or how it could be considered 'right'. Enough of that...small point.

And, the left-right isn't bad-good. It's personal preference. Too far either way and that assumption fails. Leaving the economic portion out of government, and leave only the style of governing, more to less, does seem to fit a linear scale. Add in social issues, economic ways you get to that cube that circulated a while with a test to show your political bent.

Note: when I say 'right' I do not mean republican. Over the last several Republican administrations we have gotten MORE government(national and state), not less. In my opinion, the Republicans, save a very few, are not far right as I see the left-right paradigm.

Please find me one credible, non political hack who says Nazis are leftist.

You are proving my point -- basically, modern conservative political ideology is that all things bad are leftist.

You are buying in to talk radio and right wing echo chamber BS.

lib·er·al·ism
   /ˈlɪbərəˌlɪzəm, ˈlɪbrə-/ Show Spelled[lib-er-uh-liz-uhm, lib-ruh-] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the quality or state of being liberal, as in behavior or attitude.
2.
a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.
3.
( sometimes initial capital letter ) the principles and practices of a liberal party in politics.

Definition of CONSERVATISM
1
capitalized 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

I somehow hit the 'back' button and lost be hugely eloquent post! Crap.

Anyway, I don't think I'll find a non-political hack expressing my view. They are ALL wrong! (and I am right, of course...) I found a few blogs comparing Chavez' Venezuela & the governing of Hitlers Germany (not Hitler himself) and there are striking similarities.

A personal opinion and observation: The liberal folks I know believe the government has responsibilites, and those vary depending if I'm debating my Mom-in-law or a friend in Suasalito. They believe the government should house the indigent, provide healthcare, legalize gay marriage, pay for college tuition, spend more money on education, yada yada...

I, being a righty, say: I give to the Star of Hope & volunteer, don't you? There are county hospitals for healthcare. Gay marriage; none of the gov't business. College tuition; get a grant. Education? make the money follow the student.

I believe it all whittles down to personal responsibility. Not in a bad way, just the way one goes about this world. People in the city tend to be more lib, and they are used to the government providing certain services for them, from garbage pickup, to transportation, to protection. They are used to Big Brother. On the other hand, one living rural, must be self sufficient in all these ways, and Big Brother is some far off entity taking tax money. Make sense?

Enjoy the debate, gotta go get the kids. back tomorrow!

I think what you are trying to do is force the definitions of liberal/conservative and libertine/libertarian to fit YOUR political beliefs and experiences.

The conservative wing of the media and Republican party have been working to redefine the word "liberal" for about 30 years.

They have succeeded, in that liberals don't even call themselves liberals any more, they call themselves "progressives."

Of course, the right has noticed this and now tries to tie the word "progressive" to early 20th century movement which really has no relationship to modern liberalism.

You sound like a smart person, how is it you are letting the likes of Jonah Goldberg, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh play you for a sucker?

Who's Johan Goldberg? Really, I'm not a follower. My views and beliefs are mine alone muddled together by my own life experiences. But I AM thinking...

Over night, I did a little searching and consideration of my own view. What I find is I need to have a more complete interaction of the economic policies and then the social rules of a governing body. Not just the less to more government linear scale. (Though I do see the valitity in that descriptor, it defys the common definition of left(liberal)/right(constervative). The difference in governing and government.

The Nolan chart is a somewhat better discriptor. On that chart, facism and communism are very close, though in reality they were bitter enemies. Also, I could not find any labeling nazism left, as supected. I did find numerous writings labeling nazism and facism as far right. BUT with no basis, just that it is. I have a hard time just taking someones word, particularly when I know a little about it. So I took apart the style of governing of WW2 Germany. It's Statism, in the center bottom. Very little personal liberty & gov't run economy, & gov't controlled press. Hardly right where economic freedom and open press rules, with some limits on personal freedoms. Not Left, either, where personal freedoms are paramount.

So, you haven't mentioned your position except that I'm not correct. How would you describe the left/right paradigm?

I thought I did.

It's a circle, with both ends meeting at totalitarianism.

Far left = Stalin

Far right = Hitler

The main reasons fascism is considered right wing include:

1. Extreme appeal to nationalism (jingoism).

2. Marriage of state and corporate power.

3. Appeal to traditional family values.

Last Edited by monkeydog on 06/30/2011 01:49 PM

I what way are these ideal exclusive to the right wing?

Jingoism (haven't heard that in a long time!) I thought was pride in country with reference to the British Empire when they were the superpower, but I'll look it up.

#2 is also Stalinist.

#3 maybe so, but I fail to see the family values in the rule under Hitler or Musolini.

I still don't see how facism as right wing. Statism is not 'right' No economic freedom; a full half of the equation. On the social side, state media, another opposite of the right. Too may things about it are opposed to the tenents of the right side of the spectrum. But there sure are a lot of folks that say it is (without formulative basis). I'll give some and reconsider the it is certainly not leftist. But is doesn't fit the far right either.

More and more I'm finding my linear scale is much too simplistic.

The video makes the common era of seeing political differences as a one dimensional phenomena, that is consisting of only a contium from "left" to "right".

There are in fact at least two different dimensions in measuring political position. The difference between left and right is largely economic. On the far right are those who believe that individual property rights trump all other considerations in society and on the far left are those who believe that property should be owned in common.

The other axis is between authoritarianism and anarchy. On one side you have a belife that the state should have a large amount of control over the individual and on the other side is a belief that the state should have little or no control over the individual.

Thus, the opposite of facism (far right economic beliefs, far into the authoritarian end of the scale) is not communism but liberal socialism (far left economic beliefs and a rejection of authoritarian government). The opposite of communism would be what we think of today as the "neo-liberal" viewpoint, more often referred to as a the "neocon" movement, in other words far right economic beliefs combined with a rejection of authoritarian government.

But what's interesting to me is that most people who claim to be "libertarian" as well as many who self-identify as "liberals" tend to really be much more authoritarian than they claim to be. Both seem to want much more government control than they will admit, they just want that control to be over OTHER PEOPLE, not themselves.

Here's an interesting "test" of where you fall on the political compass.

[link to politicalcompass.org]

Look, I'm no expert, but the conventional wisdom is that the Nazi movement was a right wing movement.

I think the best evidence of this is that, even before the Jews, they rounded up the Communists, trade unionists and intellectuals.

They hated the left wing.

I am simply not equipped, nor do I have the time, do defend the traditional, historical analysis of where they fit in the spectrum.

All I know, is this "Nazi's were left wingers" was popularized by Glen Beck and the aforementioned author Jonah Goldberg, both of whom are right wing propagandists.

It is fringe thinking propagated by shills, and the burden of proof is on them, not the rest of us.

This is my score:
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -6.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.92

A moderate, left wing libertarian.

According to the chart, my "dot" is in about the same place as Ghandi's.

I will take that as good company!



Last Edited by monkeydog on 06/30/2011 07:39 PM

Wow! I'm almost dead center! 2.38 to the right economics and -1.38 to Libertarian.

What I question is the Conventional Wisdom you speak of. How did it become so? Repitition, I believe. Once everyone said the earth was flat. Ain't so, though.

I question. With the internet, answers are easy to come by. I still find most of the tenents of facism not far right. Even this interesting test I just took doesn't put it very right at all.

I haven't tooked to see what the conservative talking heads you mentioned have to say regarding my view here, but I will when I get time. I'd like to see how they came abut thier positions.

Have a great long weekend!

It's history, based on documented events and filtered through the lens of peer review.

The common definition is the common definition. That's like making up you own word for "snow" and saying everyone else is doing it wrong.

It really comes down to the source of the information.

If the source is someone who makes a living shilling for a political point of view (like, Glenn Beck), then you have to question the information they are providing you.

Historians, political scientists and teachers, who of course hold political views, are ostensibly neutral. The historians job is to get to the truth. Of course they have biases, but not as biased as people with a political axe to grind.

The folks that this stuff is coming from (redefining Nazis as left wing, claiming FDR actually made the depression worse, etc.) are shamelessly partisan.

Doesn't mean they are wrong about everything, but it certainly means you have to take what they say with a HUGE grain of salt.

Your theories are coming through your political spectrum and your own biases -- it seems like you are trying to find a way to describe politics that makes things you disagree with "leftist" even if some of them are traits that are right wing, or held by both wings.

Have a good weekend yourself.