# Politics with more dimensions



## a_majoor (2 Dec 2004)

The entire Left Vs Right thing is getting stale (anyone ever wonder why I insist on writing "National Socialist" out in full?). Here is an alternative way of looking at things.

http://www.baen.com/chapters/axes.htm

ALL ENDS OF THE SPECTRUM
An Appendix

One reason Jim Baen keeps me around is that he likes to talk. We have endless telephone discussions of column topics, and they tend to spill over to anything else going on. In the course of one conversation we got to the subject of the Ayatollah Kockamamie, and Jim said something about "all ends of the political spectrum ...er, points."

"Curious you should put it that way," I replied. "I wrote my dissertation in political science on a proof that the political spectrum has more than one dimension; that the old left-right category doesn't really work."

"Now there's a column," Jim said. And on reflection I agree. At least it makes a good appendix to my tirade on what's wrong with the social sciences.

The notion of a "left" and a "right" has been with us a long time. It originated in the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly during their revolution. The delegates marched into the Hall of Machines by traditional precedence, with the aristocrats and clergy entering first, then the wealthier bourgeois, and so on, with the aristocracy seated on the Speaker's right. Since the desire for radical change was pretty well inversely proportionate to wealth, there really was, for a short time, a legitimate political spectrum running from right to left, and the concept of left and right made sense.

Within a year it was invalidated by events. New alliances were formed. Those who wanted no revolutionary changes at all were expelled (or executed). There came a new alignment called "The Mountain" (from their habit of sitting together in the higher tiers of seats). Even for 18th Century France the "left-right" model ceased to have any theoretical validity.

Yet it is with us yet; and it produces political absurdities. No one can possibly define what variable underlies the "left-right" continuum today. Is it "satisfaction with existing affairs?" Then why are reactionaries, who most definitely want fundamental changes in the system, called "right wing"? Worse, the left-right model puts Fascism and Communism at opposite end-- yet those two have many similarities. Both reject personal freedom. Some would say they are more similar than different.

What are we to make of Objectivists and the radical libertarians? They've been called "right wing anarchists," which is plain silly, a total contradiction in terms.

Nor is this all academic trivia. "There is no enemy to the Left" is a slogan taken very seriously by many intellectuals. "Popular Front' movements uniting "the Left" (generally socialists and communists) have changed the destinies of nations. Conservatives swallow hard and treat kindly other members of "the Bight" even when the others seem despicable by Conservative standards. The left-right model, although nonsensical by any theoretical analysis, has had very real political consequences.

Some years ago I set out to replace the old model with one that made more sense. I studied a number of political philosophies and tried to see what underlying concepts separated them from their political enemies. Eventually I came up with two variables. I didn't then and don't now suggest these two are all there is to political theory. I'm certain there are other important ones. But my two have this property: they map every major political philosophy and movement onto one unique place.

The two I chose are "Attitude toward the State," and "Attitude toward planned social progress".

The first is easy to understand: what think you of government? Is it an object of idolatry, a positive good, necessary evil, or unmitigated evil? Obviously that forms a spectrum, with various anarchists at the left end and reactionary monarchists at the right. The American political parties tend to fall toward the middle.

Note also that both Communists and Fascists are out at the right-hand end of the line; while American Conservatism and US Welfare Liberalism are in about the same place, somewhere to the right of center, definitely "statists." (One should not let modern anti-bureaucratic rhetoric fool you into thinking the US Conservative has really become anti-statist; he may want to dismantle a good part of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, but he would strengthen the police and army.) The ideological libertarian is of course left of center, some all the way over to the left with the anarchists.

That variable works; but it doesn't pull all the political theories each into a unique place. They overlap. Which means we need another variable.

"Attitude toward planned social progress" can be translated "rationalism"; it is the belief that society has "problems," and these can be "solved"; we can take arms against a sea of troubles.

Once again we can order the major political philosophies. Fascism is irrationalist; it says so in its theoretical treatises. It appeals to "the greatness of the nation" or to the volk, and also to the fuhrer-prinzip, i.e., hero worship.

Call that end (irrationalism) the "bottom" of the spectrum and place the continuum at right angles to the previous "statism" variable. Call the "top" the attitude that all social problems have findable solutions. Obviously Communism belongs there. Not far below it you find a number of American Welfare Liberals: the sort of people who say that crime is caused by poverty, and thus when we end poverty we'll end crime. Now note that the top end of the scale, extreme rationalism, may not mark a very rational position: "knowing" that all human problems can be "solved" by rational actions is an act of faith akin to the anarchist's belief that if we can just chop away the government, man truly free will no longer have problems. Obviously I think both top and bottom positions are whacky; but then one mark of Conservatism has always been distrust of highly rationalist schemes. Burke advocated that we draw "from the general bank of the ages, because he suspected that any particular person or generation has a rather small stock of reason; thus where the radical argues "we don't understand the purpose of this social custom; let's dismantle it," the conservative says "since we don't understand it, we'd better leave it alone."

Anyway, those are my two axes; and using them does tend to explain some political anomalies. For example: why are there two kinds of "liberal" who hate each other? But the answer is simple enough. Both are pretty thorough-going rationalists, but whereas the XIXth Century Liberal had a profound distrust of the State, the modern variety wants to use the State to Do Good for all mankind. Carry both rationalism and statism out a bit further (go northeast on our diagram) and you get to socialism, which, carried to its extreme, becomes communism. Similarly, the Conservative position leads through various shades of reaction to irrational statism, i.e., one of the varieties of fascism.

On the anti-statist end of the scale we can see the same tendency: extreme anti-rationalism ends with the Bakunin type of anarchist, who blows things up and destroys for the sake of destruction; the utterly rationalist anti-statist, on the other hand, persuades himself that somehow there are natural rights which everyone ought to recognize, and if only the state would get out of the way we'd all live in harmony; the sort of person who thinks the police no better than a band of brigands, but doesn't think that in the absence of the police, brigands would be smart enough to band together.

The whole thing looks like Figure One.





Now I do not claim this is the model of modern politics; I do claim that it is a far better model than the one we're using, and in fact I go farther and claim that the "left-right" model so ubiquitous amongst us is harmful. And while I understand that some ideologues find the "left-right" model useful to their cause, and thus have a powerful incentive to gloss over its failures, what puzzles me is why so-called objective political "scientists" don't try to abolish it, at least in freshman political science classes.

But then I've already admitted I don't understand the "social sciences" to begin with, and I needn't say all that again.
Editor's (Jim Baen) note:

Never before have I felt called upon to add to one of the redoubtable Dr. Pournelle's columns, but Jerry has been guilty of that most heinous of auctorial sins: modesty.

Seriously, Jerry seems to have come up with a useful, predictive, scientific measuring device for the social so called sciences, and passed it off as an "Appendix," forsooth! In politics alone the results of the widespread use of the Pournelle Axes would be revolutionary: pols would be required not only to declare themselves but to reveal precisely and literally their political position- and live with it. For example Teddy Kennedy from his own pronouncements cannot be less than a 4.5/4.5'-how many people in this country would vote for a 4.5/4.5' once it was revealed for what it was? Give me a 2/4' any day! (That's what I am; once you have analyzed your own position, you may find your own political choices becoming remarkably simplified. Reagan and Crane, both at 4/2', make me a little nervous. Bush, at 3/3', looks pretty good.)

Note also the odd sympathy and support between the diagonally facing quadrants, as opposed to the antipathy between contiguous ones-at first blush diagonals would seem to make natural enemies, yet artists, intuitive by definition and anti-statist almost by definition, yearn for a world where true art is replaced by Socialist Realism-while libertarians provide the theoretical groundwork for right-wing dictatorships! Odd, very odd.

Note also how one can define "reasonable" as any position no farther from 3/3' than one's own: those farther out in one's own quadrant are pleasantly dotty; those farther out in another, unpleasantly so . . .

But it's not my aim to analyze the Pournelle Axes in depth-- any such attempt by me would be necessarily superficial. One of these days I'll get another column from him on this subject. My point is that for this column Jerry Pournelle is guilty. Guilty as sin. Of modesty.
-Jim Baen


----------



## winchable (2 Dec 2004)

Excellent, drives me bananas too.
www.politicalcompass.org if I'm not mistaken follows this idea of politics being on a more cartesian plane rather than a single line.

I'm terrible at picturing written things, is this an XY axis or is it an XYZ axis?
I've always felt even the political compass was not enough.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Dec 2004)

I see the diagram didn't come over (go to the link to see it), but this version is XY. I am sure there are more nuanced models with more factors operating, leading to a 3D XYZ graph.


----------



## winchable (3 Dec 2004)

The political compass is kind of like that I believe (less star wars maybe?)

I'd be interested to see if someone's put together an xyz model for politics, lord knows I doubt I could do it on my own.
Logic might dictate that would be the most realistic form (also the most complicated. We're political creatures by nature, and we live in a natural 3Dimensional surrounding.


----------



## jrhume (3 Dec 2004)

Whether it's a political compass or a 3D model, is it possible for any such construct to accurately determine anything about the electorate in general, as opposed to the extremes?

No matter how you measure political tendencies, the least newsworthy and (in my opinion) most important trends will be contained in that mass below the fattest part of a bell curve.  Outlying tendencies tend to be modified over time and some will disappear altogether.  Even in our left-right world the shrieking few draw attention, but seldom accurately predict which way the voters will move.

Will any model be able to depict worthwhile information about cultural political migrations?  I realize such tools will have uses other than predicting electoral changes.  That's just the element that intrigues me now.

Jim


----------



## a_majoor (4 Dec 2004)

In the model posted, most of the action happens near the middle, but most of the "theory" is on the edges.  Irrational "National Socialism" seems to pull towards thugocracies, while "Rational" Communism pulls the leftist nanny state model towards an all encompassing extreme.

As the article mentions, the other side of the graph seems to be virgin territory: an extreme rationalist who belives government power is evil or unnessesary would fit into the libertarian part of the model, but there are currently no libertarian govenments (yes, I know...) or even viable parties that I know of. As for a "Irrationalist" who is against government....

Perhaps if enough of the readers in this forum who are in post secondary education pushed it hard enough, we might be able to dialogue in terms of where we fit on the graph (Why you stinking 4/ 2'!) rather than the simplistic and hopelessly wrong "Left Right" model. (Just so you know, I am about 2.5/ 3')


----------



## Infanteer (4 Dec 2004)

I took the test and both times I ended pretty much in the middle.

Is that a good thing?

Does it mean I'm not very ideological, or does it mean I'm a fence sitter....


----------



## Spr.Earl (4 Dec 2004)

Try this one on for size.
Regarding the the IMF and World Bank.

http://www.gregpalast.com/printerfriendly.cfm?artid=125


----------



## a_majoor (4 Dec 2004)

Sounds like more foil helmet stuff.

Getting back on track, here is another "cartesian" political graph: http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html


----------



## winchable (4 Dec 2004)

Not even sure if I want to reveal my results on either of those tests, I didn't even think I was that.

After thorough searching on the internet I've figured that if we were to develop an XYZ political compass we would be the first and we would be filling an oft asked for role.


----------



## Infanteer (4 Dec 2004)

Well, that political graph was a little sparse.  I don't know, does this sound like me?


----------



## jrhume (7 Dec 2004)

Could an XYZ diagram be useful in other than academic circles?  

My intuition tells me that if it can't be drawn out with a crayon it won't be of much practical use.

I'm unhappy with current Left/Right, Red/Blue depictions of political splits, but they are simple.  Can we come up with a more accurate way of describing political variations that is equally simple?  

My emphasis on simplicity stems from many sources.  One is that at my age I've seen a good deal of social/political/military commentary and analysis, both from personal experience and from reading.  It has become clear that simpler constructs, if accurate, are better for communicating concepts, even if the overall idea has to be broken down into bits and pieces.  I DO NOT mean that most people can't understand more complex explanations or depictions, but that they either cannot or will not take the time to delve into involved material.  

Let's face it -- the average person in the US or Canada is expected to have an opinion on a huge variety of subjects.  Most of us take a certain attitude toward situations or ideas and only pay attention to information which might alter that attitude.  It's a question of time and availability, I think.  We can't be up to date on all things.

In a fictional military tale I read once, a commander taught his junior officers to make simple plans.  "If it can't be drawn on the back of a ration box," he would tell them, "it's too complicated."

I hope this is making sense.  Like the commander in my example, I look for an understandable way to depict political leanings.  Esoteric methods using a compilation of questions to ascertain attitudes, based on some unknown person's tool, is an untrustworthy method, in my opinion.  In the same fashion, a complex tool will never be accepted by the people who need it -- like me.

Jeez, I gotta get back to work.

Jim


----------



## nismo0 (15 Dec 2004)

I read these Threads here about crazy left wing students harassing right wing students; officers not wanting to take their hat off for religious services, and everyone being polarized one way or another. 

The problem here is that people look at religion and especially politics as a left or right issue, black and white, monotheism versus atheism and so on. I myself look at it as a buffet, on balance I consider myself more right then left. Those who identify themselves as RIGHT-WING or LEFT-WING are zealots or just misinformed (but i like calling them zealots cause it sounds like ROBOT LOL). There are a million issues, and if you go and honestly answer all of them, I don't think you'll get the traditional leftwing or rightwing stance on all of them. For example, I'm against gun control, against big government, for social programs for youth and children, against welfare (but for unemployment, and job retraining), for legalizing pot, for abortion in cases of insect or rape (but when woman say I have the right to choose, they should have choose responsibility and a contraceptive earlier).   : That last comment is gonna get some responces

The point is don't just identify yourself as a this or a that, announcing your views and where u stand on things is COOL I do it all the time, but to say I'm a republican, or a liberal, or a whatever sounds really stupid unless your running for office, in which I'll call you part of the criminal class (Mark Twain said that about Congress LOL). So just relax and don't let your affiliation with a party get the better of you. And ofcourse Universities are left leaning, I really don't care, because thats the way society is, I mean the military is always right wing, so what. We kick ass!  :warstory:

As far as the religion thing goes, this country is secular, or more accurately the government is, and the majority of Canadians don't have a religious affliation either. There are a few traditional phrases that are in there, but it's more ceremonial; and I know a few NUTJOBS have a problem with that, but in time even that will be removed thanks to the Supreme Court. 

Lastly remember, I rather be living in a tolerant society where I can do whatever regardless of my faith or political affiliation than some messed up country like Saudi or Israel where unless you conform to that country's religion or political system you will be marginlized or even worse....moeleseted by Micheal Jackson (LOL ok maybe not molested).  ;D


----------



## Canadian.Trucker (15 Dec 2004)

Mmmmm...this is a very heated topic.  Many say Religion doesn't belong in government, and that everyone should be allowed to choose their own personnal and spiritual path.  I agree to a point on this, but still feel that religion has a fundamental place in our society.  The problem is though we have become so tolerant, we're in fact becoming intolerant.  This is going to come out wrong because I can't truly type enough to explain myself, but when everybody has a right to do what they wish when they wish everyone ends up backed into a corner.  I use Christianity for an example because I am one.  The Bible teaches that homosexuality is wrong, and is therefore being deemed hate literature.  Right there you are stepping on a right of religious conscience and freedom.  The Bible does not teach that a homosexual person has any less right to be loved or cared for, but that the sexual practice is wrong and goes against nature.  So...how do we place borders, barriers, restrictions on one view but not on any others?

This is a dangerous road to walk down.  So, before I get myself in a lot of trouble and offend someone I'll stop.  I do not wish to make anyone feel uncomfortable or uneasy.


----------



## Infanteer (15 Dec 2004)

You created a new thread for your theory, but it was basically a continuation of a previous one, so I tacked them together.


----------



## nismo0 (15 Dec 2004)

COOL Dude, no problem.


----------



## Dogboy (16 Dec 2004)

the big problem with having a discussion on religion is the simple fact that religion is not logical at all.
politics is a point of viewyes, but you come to your view threw you logic, and can say why thats your view. but religion cannot be logecal at all, its a faith thing it defies logic therefor cannot be discussed logically.


----------



## nismo0 (16 Dec 2004)

Yes it can, problem is that those who are "believers", won't accept your logical arguments. But thats there problem, from Hindus' who worship their pagen monkey GODS, to modern religions it is the same dog and pony show. But because we identify and grew up with a specific religion, we become believers and think it's true, and think that its the only true religion. Praise Jebus

"Where we have strong emotions, we're liable to fool ourselves." - Carl Sagan


----------



## Canadian.Trucker (16 Dec 2004)

*holds head*

Spoken like true atheists.  And Dogboy, if you think politics is logical...please go and spend more time on parliament hill.


----------



## Dogboy (17 Dec 2004)

I said politics 
not politicians


----------



## Reccesoldier (19 Dec 2004)

Che said:
			
		

> www.politicalcompass.org



Could there be any more "Do you like to beat your wife?"   kinds of questions in this test? I mean the questions are so vague or ambiguous you could answer one way or the other depending on your frame of mind at that particular moment. IMO trying to pin down your political leanings with an online quiz is a true waste of time.


----------



## winchable (19 Dec 2004)

Right, not quite the be-all end-all of politics, but I wouldn't put too much stock into anything one reads on the internet.
Posted as something of a catalyst to get people thinking about the idea of something more complex than left vs. right political bickering and name calling.


----------



## Canadian.Trucker (19 Dec 2004)

Dogboy said:
			
		

> I said politics
> not politicians



Ah, touché.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Jan 2005)

Another kick at the cat.
This is a long .pdf document, follow the link: http://tipperography.typepad.com/tipperography/files/ideologycurves.pdf


----------



## Infanteer (18 Jan 2005)

Ooohhh...Ethical Calculus....

(_Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri_, anyone?)


----------



## LF(CMO) (18 Jan 2005)

"If it can't be drawn on the back of a ration box........ It's too complicated"

 The above is what works for me, whether it be politics or my work.   I've found that when explaining the 'plan' to the crew, it's much better to keep it as simple as possible especially with the hazards envolved.

 One of my most respected Officers always used KISS, but changed it to Keep it simple Sgt.

 That's why we have the right/left thing in politics. Just trying to keep it simple.   If we were all in the center, this site would be very dull!!


----------



## a_majoor (20 Jan 2005)

LF(CMO) said:
			
		

> "If it can't be drawn on the back of a ration box........ It's too complicated"



I once worked for a British exchange officer who could do up a very good set of orders on the back of a cigarette package, so I fully understand the sentiment. The big problem is the "Left/Right" divide is TOO simplistic. Libertarians and Conservatives don't get along too well, even though they are both "right wing", while Nazis (National Socialists) and Communists fought ferocious street battles in Germany in the 1920s, and finally a major war even though they are both firmly "left wing" ideologies.

What we are really waiting for is some very smart person to come up with a rational, easy to understand way of describing ideologies that is more accurate than "left/right". The attempts that I have discovered and posted all share the xy axis diagram in common, which would indicate to me that the minimum number of variables to consider is at least two.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Apr 2007)

Another way of looking at things: the more Left wing/Socialist the philosophy, the less the individual counts and the more importance "group identity" holds. The only problem is groupings are arbitrary, these two examples will blow the theory of natural demographics or groupings right out of the water:

gayrepublican.blogspot.com
gayandright.blogspot.com

Thanks to Instapundit and The Blogging Tories for hosting these guys



(edit for spelling)


----------



## Operationblack (15 May 2007)




----------



## a_majoor (16 Mar 2010)

Here is yet another attempt to model politics beyond the left/right divide:

http://spinassassin.blogspot.com/2010/03/general-model-for-political-sepctrum.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+SpinAssassin+%28Spin+Assassin%29


----------



## a_majoor (12 Oct 2010)

An interesting look at how the values of the past have come full circle in the present. (Incidentally, Hippies were subdivided into many sub categories as well, I suspect the group the author is referencing is the "Freaks" rather than the "Flower Children" of popular memory or the radicals who led campus protests and the anti-war movement: (part 1)

http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2010/10/11/the-electric-tea-party-acid-test/?singlepage=true



> *The Electric Tea Party Acid Test*
> October 11, 2010 - by Zombie
> 
> This is a memo to America’s hippies:
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (12 Oct 2010)

Part 2

http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2010/10/11/the-electric-tea-party-acid-test/?singlepage=true



> But aren’t hippies inherently pro-Democrat and anti-Republican? Hasn’t it always been that way?
> 
> Au contraire. In fact, as the photos sprinkled throughout this page show, the mass-movement hippie era first arose during the Johnson administration, and was explicitly hostile to Johnson’s Democratic Party agenda — in particular his foreign policy agenda. Despite a fair amount of after-the-fact revisionism in which Nixon has been retroactively cast as the villain of the Vietnam War, remember that Nixon did not become president until the end of January, 1969, and that for the vast majority of the anti-war protests of “the sixties,” LBJ was president and LBJ was consequently the target of the protesters’ wrath.
> 
> ...


----------

