It is my contention that a useful political approximation (the map) has become the
agreed-upon reality (territory), and hardly anyone questions its existence. Yet it
is likely impossible to shoehorn any and every political view into this simple binary
spectrum and make said view a good fit. Take libertarianism, which more often than
not sits uneasily somewhere on the right, even though a number of left-ish views
have quite a bit in common with libertarianism. In reality there are likely innumerable
political axes of this sort, and not just one, but we seem stuck with the one we have.
In any event do you see the L-R political spectrum eventually fading, and being
replaced by something else (or being replaced by people becoming comfortable
dealing with real life’s complexities for a change and not a simplistic model). Being
the idealist that I am I hope the recent events in the US will help to usher the old
L-R view off the stage, but perhaps it serves a useful purpose after all? Or is our
weddedness to the spectrum hampering genuine positive change as we remain
shackled to our outdated views and models, afraid to cross the imaginary line
between liberal and conservative, even if the line doesn’t in fact exist?
There seem to be two questions here: 1) Does the linear left-right political spectrum model adequately describe real-life variation in political views, and 2) Will this model eventually disappear to be replaced by a more complex model?
My take on it is
No, and
No.
The simple left-right linear spectrum has never been an accurate description of what political views actually encompass, but it’s been in use for at least a couple of hundred years of intense variation in political ideology, and I don’t think it’s going away any time soon.
As long as you have a two-party system, a single-axis spectrum probably works fine. If, after electoral reform, viable minor parties come about, then different political spectra will likely become popular.
I’m most familiar with the method politicalcompass.org uses – in my minor political experience, it’s a fairly accurate way to describe any person’s political leanings.
It’s not particularly useful IMO. It assumes if you have certain beliefs then you will have other beliefs, even though the issues may not be related. Just because your pro-life doesn’t mean you can’t be concerned about global warming. If your opposed to the Iraq war you can also support stronger measures to control illegal immigration.
As commonly used, the simplcity of the model isn’t a drawback, it’s the feature. Most people don’t care enough about politics to try to graph the new Congress’s political views on a three dimentional chart.
I’m reminded of that thing that Leonard Nemoy says in Civ IV whenever I discover some new technology: the test of a good invention is not whether there is anything left to add, but whether there’s anything left to take away.
Is Nimoy the guy doing the voiceover in English? The quote is from St. Exupèry. (And some of those voiceovers make absolutely no sense the way they’re read, specially in languages other than English… it’s quite evident the reader has no idea what the original context is)
Well, the map never becomes the territory, just like the menu never becomes the meal. But lots of people are still willing to suck on the finger that points to the moon instead of following where it points.
There will always be people who are ignorant, to some degree or another, of the process of abstracting, the fallacious use of composition and division, the ephemerality of most generalizations, etc… But that doesn’t mean all that much, IMO. Some people have relatively poor semantic hygiene, and they’ll generally confuse words with the things they represent.
I can see where you’re coming from, and I do think that such false-to-facts thinking is a detriment to humanity… but I don’t think that using a political spectrum, especially if it’s done on a belief-by-belief basis, is necessarily detrimental.
/ramble
Anyone else ever notice that Libertarians are the only ones who ever bring up the points in the OP? I guess they just don’t like being stuck way out there on the right wing when some of their positions match those of people on the left. But it does make a good for test for identifying them.
It’s because people with off-axis political views often get marginalized by the on-axis extremes. People with fiscally conservative, socially liberal views (like myself and many others on the SDMB) and those who prefer leftish economics and conservative social agendas (apparently rare around here) are typically accused of being wishy-washy or too moderate or traitorous for daring to step away from the political axis.
The best hope for us is a multi-party system, although it might be fun if the two major parties realigned onto other axis.
Except that I’m not a libertarian (my best friend is). My underlying concern was how much
attachment to this model ends up affecting who is elected and what laws are passed, and
whether the recent election might be a step away from all that.