Are these three categories for countries and political parties useful?

Politics & Elections
1

Inspired by various current events, including the recent US House speakership debacle. I’m going to use the labels liberal, conservative, and reactionary, but this is more about the categories than what label to assign them. Please feel free to suggest different labels. Here’s the three groups as I see them.

  1. Liberals. This group is about improving the lives of everyone / making the world a better place. The US Democratic Party is one example. Most western nations (I include Japan and South Korea as western for this purpose) fall into this group as well. The guiding philosophy is something like “a rising tide lifts all boats.” Yes, there’s disagreements within the group, but the disagreements tend to be about what the best way is to raise the tides rather than whether or not raising the tide to improve everyone’s lives is a good idea.

  2. Conservatives. This group is more about making their own lives better. They may end up screwing over other people in the process, but inflicting pain on others for shits and giggles isn’t the primary objective, it’s a side effect that may sometimes occur in the process of focusing on improving one’s own situation. The US Republican Party back in the days of Bush Jr. is a good example. Countries that I include in this group include the Arab nations and China.

  3. Reactionaries. This group is all about screwing over the people they consider their enemies, even if it means that they hurt themselves in the process. Examples include the present day US Republican Party, and countries like Russia and Iran.

Why is this important? Because ISTM that a major factor in whether the liberals or reactionaries win depends on which side the conservatives end up supporting. Whether at the level of individual voters, elected representatives, or entire nations, this seems to me to be how the current conflicts around the world are defined. What do you all think?

2

If you are going to start from that pejorative basis you aren’t going to get anywhere outside confirmation bias.

The “Your insurgent is my freedom fighter” meme

Where on your scale would you put Socialists?

3

I’m exceptionally liberal, but my ideology has nothing to do with making the world a better place through government; it’s about making the world a better place without government, which puts me in the conservative category, by your definition, and even the reactionary category by other definitions.

I think, though, that the Conservatives think they’re going to make the world a better place by implementing their policies. The fact that you think they’re wrong is the basis of politics. They don’t actually want to make the world a worse place, for fuck’s sake.

Remember that “liberal” means “liberty”; so while the Dems want to give you the “liberty” to get an abortion, they want to take away your “liberty” to not want to make gay cakes.

Now you see that my use of liberal vs. the Democratic use of the word liberal are at odds.

No, your three categories are not at all useful. But, honestly, the common vernacular of liberal/conservative/right/left/etc aren’t useful either. It’s divisive and leads to rah-rah-rah my side vs. your side rather than accomplishing anything useful.

I wish we had a parliamentary, coalition style of government instead.

4

Depends on which Socialists we’re talking about. Bernie Sanders and present day Scandinavian socialist parties would fall into the first group. Someone like Stalin would be in the third group with a few characteristics from the second.

I’m using the categories as more of a catch all that can apply to individuals, political parties, and nations as a whole. As I mentioned, the first camp in particular tends to have disagreements among itself about how to make the world a better place, which ultimately come down to tactics (i.e. we have the same goals but disagree on the best way to get there). So I think you would fall into the first category.

The second group sometimes acts in a way to what they think makes world better, but sometimes not. Take global warming for example. I don’t believe the “drill baby drill” types (at least not educated people like the energy secretaries under Republican administrations) are so stupid to actually believe that global warming is a hoax. They just care more about their personal pocketbook than about climate disasters that someone else’s children or grandchildren will have to deal with. But at least they aren’t so far gone as to behave like someone in the third group, say the coal rollers, who purposely damage their own vehicles and spend more of their own money on gasoline just so they can “trigger the libs.”

ETA. And I’m not set on these particular labels. I just chose them as labels that make some sense from the perspective of the present day American political scene. Please feel free to apply different labels to these categories as you see fit.

5

To further clarify on socialist leaders, most of the Soviet leaders fall into group 2. Gorbachev falls into group 1. Which means that based on my judgment, morally Putin is the worst Russian leader since Stalin, as he falls squarely in the third group.

6

Why are you splitting the US into its individual parties, but other countries get overall judgement? The current ruling parties of Japan and Korea are in no way liberal. Does “most Western nations” include the UK? Italy? Switzerland?

7

As an American, my knowledge of other countries is naturally more limited. But I will say that the categories are not permanent. We can have situations where a country as a whole is still mostly in one category even if the ruling party is from a different one. I’ll stick to the US since it’s the country I’m most familiar with. IMHO I’d put the US in the liberal category starting with the election of FDR up through the end of Obama’s presidency, despite their being periods of time where a party from the conservatives led the government. So if the US as a whole can be a liberal country even when the president is someone like Reagan or Bush Jr., IMHO that means other countries can also be liberal as a whole even when the group in charge of the government is from a different group. I mentioned another example as well, with the USSR (group 2 at the time) during the time it was led Gorbachev (a group 1 person). Of course with enough effort by the leaders, things can change, as they did in the US during Trump’s presidency.

To make a long story short, just because Margaret Thatcher or Fumio Kishida or George Bush Jr. are personally conservative, that doesn’t automatically make their nation conservative just because they happen to be in charge. It takes an effort by the leader to try to change the culture of the nation, the way Trump did (and FDR back in the day when he dragged the US from group 2 to group 1), to drag a nation from one category to another.

8

I wouldn’t. That’s the period of attempted US global hegemony, and it was not “making the world a better place” - that’s when Vietnam happened; the CIA supported the Apartheid government, murdered Lumumba and generally caused much evil; Grenada was invaded and … oh, yeah, a little thing like invading Iraq for something Saudis based in Afghanistan did.

And that’s just things your country officially did (even if sometimes covertly), that’s leaving aside your export of evangelism and the damage caused by your megacorps.

The USA didn’t act like your idealized liberal group when seen from the outside, for most of that time. You’ve always been a Type 2 country overall. There wasn’t enough light between Type 2 USA and Type 2 USSR to slide a thin knife.

9

It is by no means perfect, as SDers will be quick to point out, but politicalcompass.org offers a more detailed, nuanced, and varied, political typology. It’s put together by people who study politics and ideology as their day job. Experts are by no means perfect or infallible, but they tend to avoid the obvious errors and misconceptions, even as they go on to make more detailed, nuanced, and varied ones.

10

False.

11

Fair enough. I can see how non-American can see things from that point of view. But let’s say that you’re correct. The particular people and the mindset behind those actions was likely about American hegemony, as you state. But in order to have a hegemony, one needs a system. What I don’t get is why the people of that mindset (whether the US government from FDR through Obama or anyone else) think they have anything in common with the “burn it all down” or “I care more about hurting my enemies than helping myself” type people like present day Russia and Iran, and the MAGAs of the contemporary United States.

This is why I came up with this idea, that the selfish, self interested people of today’s world would be better off siding with those asking them to sacrifice some for the greater good rather than those who are so morally corrupt that they care more about hurting their chosen enemies rather than improving their own lives. I’m open to arguments that maybe I’ve put a few of my examples in the wrong category. But I think the big picture is that this is the struggle going on around the world, whether between political parties in any given nation (see Frodo’s thread about Argentina as another example) and between nations as well, such as the Ukraine war.

The particular thought that triggered it is the idea that China might use the current global state of affairs to move against Taiwan. Which would likely end up leading us into a world war, which would not be to the benefit of China regardless of how things turn out. It’s this shortsightedness of the second group, such as a potential Chinese invasion of Taiwan (or the Liz Cheney wing of the Republican Party refusing to become Democrats, or any number of other situations world wide) to see that joining the third group rather than the first group will hurt them more than help them that doesn’t just frustrate me, it scares me.

12

If you think any of those three groups aren’t primarily about helping themselves, you haven’t been paying attention. Usually helping themselves to power, but also material wealth. Or reacting to current privilege being perceived as under threat.

Your whole thesis depends on one unstated assumption. It’s the idea that most people are basically good, that most aren’t inherently selfish. That it’s just “shortsightedness” that causes people not to cooperate.

Well, I don’t believe that’s the case. I believe most people are not good in that way. Not even neutral - most people are a little bad. Selfish as well as bigoted and hateful. And even more are either stupid or ignorant. Evil and dumb is a terrible combination.

13

I’m a try-everything guy. There might be a couple of conservatives who are repulsed by strongman tactics and trending authoritarianism. But most of them will take the position helpfully put forward by Balthisar: “They don’t actually want to make the world a worse place, for fuck’s sake.”

In contrast, a classic description of the politics of screwing your enemies is in a 2018 Atlantic Magazine article by Adam Serwer:

There’s a wide grouping stretching from Milton Friedman to Bernie Sanders that embraces empirical study as a means of advancing broad based prosperity. Most GOP politicians have wandered outside of that zone. Most conservatives (by the definition of the OP) will never get the memo. But hey: try everything.

If you want to keep someone in a ditch, you need to climb in a ditch with them

I say conservatives face a choice: they can take the path of Atlanta, Georgia or Birmingham, Alabama. Both cities were approximately the same size in 1960. Birmingham directed fire hoses at black people; Atlanta decided it would be, “The city that’s too busy to hate.” Today Birmingham is a city of less than 200,000. Atlanta is a world class destination of 500,000. Too busy to hate.

ETA: Dibble: Yeah, I was dubious about the definition of category 1 as well, but I felt it was a little far afield from the OP’s point. Here’s one possible edit: underlining added:

NeoLiberals. This group is about improving the lives of everyone / making the world a better place policy based on within-country material outcomes. The US Democratic Party is one example. Most western nations (I include Japan and South Korea as western for this purpose) fall into this group as well. The guiding philosophy is something like “a rising tide lifts all boats.” Yes, there’s disagreements within the group, but the disagreements tend to be about what the best way is to raise the tides rather than whether or not raising the tide to improve everyone’s lives is a good idea.

Reminder: Thatcher’s Britain was very far to the left of Carter’s America.

14

Maybe I’m short sighted, but I don’t understand how the people from group 3 can be said to be primarily about helping themselves. How is a MAGA voter who votes for Donald Trump, knowing that Trump will make it easier for the owner of the business they work for to pay them a lower salary, work in more unsafe conditions, etc. just so that their neighbor who is a minority might end up suffering more than them, being selfish and looking out primarily for themselves? Or the Russian conscript who goes to charge a Ukrainian position in which the best case scenario is that they somehow survive and end up being complicit in the genocide of the Ukrainian people, but end up with no personal reward for themselves? Or an Iranian businessman who had to do business with Russia at below market rates because they are being sanctioned due to their desire to commit genocide against the Israelis? I don’t see how any of those people are primarily looking out for themselves. If they were, they’d be voting Democratic instead of MAGA, marching on Moscow instead of Avdiivka, and organizing a mass movement to replace the ayatollah respectively. Instead, they do what they do because their hatred for their perceived enemies outweighs their greed.

ETA. To wrap it around back to the second group, I assume the members of the second group, who are primarily motivated by greed rather than hate, end up siding with the third group because they think the third group is easier to manipulate than the first group.

15

Because Trump says he’s going to help them, and everything Trump says is correct.

Don’t overlook people who are selfish and ignorant.

16

I already said why. This covers the MAGA types;

You do know how conscription works, right? It’s not voluntary.

That is not the default state of every Iranian businessman. It certainly wasn’t when they were doing enough business with Israel to still be owed a billion dollars today…
Iranian anti-Israel activity is a top-down thing and wasn’t always the default state. And there are plenty of regional realpolitik reasons for Iran to build up Israel as an enemy now.

17

I would categorize the groups differently.

Utopians: Broadly in favour of complete reinvention to an idealized future. They avoid doing small things, and are inclined to burn it all down and start again.
Progressive: Broadly in favour of little change (small tweaks, but do new things) in order to improve the country.
Conservative: Broadly in favour of little change (small tweaks, avoid new things) in order to improve the country.
Regressive: Broadly in favour of reversion to an idealized past. They avoid doing small things, unless it’s to burn it all down and start again.

This avoids stigmatizing any of the groups as inherently bad, though I think it’s fair to say the Utopians and Regressives are inherently misguided, as their idea of the past / future is often based on simplified versions.

I’d say the US Democrats are, broadly, progressive. There are a handful of Utopians.
The Republicans were traditionally small-c conservatives, but now the reactionary wing is large and prominent.

There’s a different axis which I’d call collectivist vs individualist. Partly because of the American mythos of rugged individualism, most Americans simply aren’t collectivists, which is why the few socialists tend to be Utopians. Other countries have a different mix.

18

Sure, but internally most of that stuff didn’t matter and nobody gave half a shit about them, with the exception of Vietnam and Iraq, and only then because American soldiers were fighting and dying. Patrice Lumumba is most famous in the US for being a Trivial Pursuit question answer, for example.

So yeah, we were in category 1 for that time internally, even if our foreign policy didn’t quite align with it.

19

So …

Not

Q.E.D.
You yourself have just admitted they are NOT Group 1.

Unless “being a hypocrite” was a characteristic of Group 1, those are two mutually exclusive characteristics. You can’t be making the world a better place for everyone if you fuck the world over.

20

I agree, although I’d tweak Conservative to be more along the lines of skeptical of change, but not opposed, if the need can be proved.

That’s always how I understood classical conservatism- sort of a “if it’s not broke, don’t fix it” philosophy, where the overriding assumption was that things are good the way they are, and as such, don’t need to be changed. But if there is a need, then they should be changed.

The real conflict between Progressives and Conservatives comes in the need and proof part of things. Progressives tend to see a problem, and the default assumption is that it needs to be fixed, and not only does it need to be fixed, it needs to be fixed directly by the government. Conservatives question whether it needs to be fixed at all, and if so, is direct government action the way to go, or are things like subsidies, tax breaks, or other more subtle instruments of governmental action better.

Another thing (and we see it here all the time), the Utopians and Progressives often see issues as self-evidently problematic, and skip right to the solution phase, without really explaining why this is actually a problem that warrants the disruption that the solutions might cause. To Conservatives, this seems like a gut-level emotional reaction, not well thought out, precipitous, frantic, and half-cocked. Meanwhile, to Progressives, the Conservative skepticism and resistance seems extremely frustrating, because there’s a problem right there and you’re giving me a hard time about whether it’s even a problem!

Another difference is that Progressives tend to be more empathetic about problems and their effects, and Conservatives value a dispassionate, rational assessment of such things. So both sides’ preferred approach looks bad to the other- Conservatives view Progressives as being dominated by irrational emotion, and therefore discount their solutions, and Progressives view Conservatives as cold, hostile, and uncaring. Both of which are right, but also somewhat incorrect when you consider the position they’re coming from.