ideology spectrum

[evirus]

After taking some political science classes in college, much to my suprise, and embarassment, people say that my example of ideology is totaly wrong, what do you think of my "pitch?



the onlything not self explanatory is the red line, which is the american tolerance levels if that makes any sense

[Ringo84]

1. Re:

Hmm... I thought that extreme libertarianism was anarchism, and extreme conservatism was fascism.

The political spectrum on the Political Compass is probably the best one out there.
Ringo

[evirus]

2. prehaps this is because

that spectrum that i used is realy just interms of government control?

[Ringo84]

3. Oh

Sorry for being so dumb.
Ringo

[nealmhughes]

4. I was just helping my friend Joe prep for his Ph.D. exams and we were

going over "Populist," "Progressive" and other labels and the historical shifts in them.

"Populist" usually refers to an outlook that is majoritarian, rooted in the urban working classes and the farmers, can often become a cult of personality and has been associated with antisemitism and xenophobia and antiblack in the past. Many would say that perhaps George Wallace is an exellent example of a Populist, but then again, so was LaFollette and now Senator Harkin. It is a mode of political campaign more than an ideology. Hitler might even be considered a Populist.

A Progressive, on the other hand, is usually associated historically with T. Roosevelt and W. Wilson in the USA. Progressives favor a strong level playing field and are anti-monopoly and often anti-corporate. Today, Progressive means that still, with shades of T.Roosevelt's environmentalism and a great degree of personal liberty: witness Harkin again and Ralph Nader and now Al Gore.

A Liberal, classically is nearly every Frenchman, Briton and USAian! Democratic representation, freedom of individual rights as sacrosanct, and the other parts are mainly that historically, the Liberals were very laissez-faire, almost Libertarian in their economics. Current definition is for a mild social democracy in the USA, with the freedom of the individual retained from the classical def and a lot of Progressive elements of environmentalism and anti-monopoly thrown in from the Progressives. FDR and LBJ and Harkin, T. Kennedy are the classics. Non-intervention except for humanitarian reasons (Bosnia, Rwanda, etc.) or after attack (al Qaeda in Afghanistan) are the most prevalent views on foreign policy.

A Conservative, historically are loathe to change what has been established. For that reason, the Democratic Party was once the more conservative of the two when the Whigs were the opposition. This was classically illustrated by the tariff fights and the Band of the US during Jackson's reign. One might argue that the Democrats have always been conservative in belief in the Constitutional system, particularly a strong Congress. The Republicans have taken on the moniker of late, but most of those who claim to be conservative aren't. They press for a "strong defense" which is code for armed conflict, and do not seem to any longer advocating Fortress America and anti-interventionism, which had been the claim of the Republican Party after the great post war victory and the near-defeat of the UN by congress. Modern socalled conservatives tend to be supporters of corporate power, and to see intervention in other states' affairs as mandated. There are also social/religious conservatives who want the US to be a June and Ward Cleaver Land that never existed and use their Bibles and Ayn Rand for their justifications.

You can do the two extremes yourself!

I for example am a Liberal, Progressive Democratic Socialist who happens to be a member of the Democratic Party.

[Bucky]

5. Yeh, it's pretty confusing. Conservatism doesn't mean less control by gov'

You leave out socialism, which is far far more prevalent than communism. You call libertarianism "anarchism" which it is certainly not. And you place progressivism to the left of liberalism while the general public uses these terms interchangeably. If anything, progressive is a much more "centrist" concept than liberal--except in a few left of center circles.

I think I'm seeing a bit of wheel reinvention here, or perhaps just redefinition of commonly accepted terms. That's all cool, by the way, it's part of you trying to get a handle on how all these ideas work with each other. Lots of websites use two-dimensional grids for plotting out ideologies. Those might provide some more food for thought.

Keep reinventing those wheels, by the way. You never know when it'll lead to a radical improvement.

[Warren DeMontague]

6. I like the political compass model

better than a simple left-right, it takes into account authoritarianism vs. libertarian impulses as well.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

[nealmhughes]

7. Man, that site was kewl: I ended up somewhere between Mandela and

the Dalai Lama!

[Warren DeMontague]

8. Yeah, that's my quadrant, too, I think.

Economic Left/Right: -4.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.97

[evirus]

11. interesting site

much like nealmhughes im near nelson and dalai

Economic Left/Right: -7.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.77

[rman]

9. Anarchism as such is neither left nor right,

neither progressive nor conservative - anarchism can be a trait of both.

The so-called Free MArket is an expression of capitalist anarchism.

But more usually anarchism is associalted with the far left; see for instance anarcho-syndicalism.

Above all, anarchism is greatly misunderstood. It simply means 'governance without a single leader' ie no dictator, but also no president. The governing body in anarchism is something like a council- or parliament of elected representatives.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism

[upi402]

10. To me, the biggest idealists were libertarians and anarchists

They actually think that the biggest, most well armed and violent savage would not brutally rule.
I think they must be the sweetest dears on earth, like fuzzy little kittens in their perception of mans treatment of man.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

13. You mean like what's happening now?

The bosses have made such a wonderful world, free of "well armed savages". Oh, wait..

[otherlander]

12. I think it might be more like a circle...just a thought.

Conservatism, believing in small government, to small government and more civil liberties, libertarianism, to liberalism, believing in civil liberties but government-controlled social welfare programs, to socialism, more government control, to communism, with less civil liberties, to totalitarianism, strict government control, to fascism, to neoconservatism, and then conservatism again.

I guess, with liberalism, the difficulty is balancing the principals of civil liberties and freedom from government control, more libertarian, with the principal of having services for the people controlled by the government, more socialist. Going too far in one direction would approach conservatism, and going too far in the other would approach communism, both of which defeat the purpose of having a liberal society.