# The Liberal-Conservative spectrum is phony **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 24, 2004, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-liberal-conservative-spectrum-is-phony/270908 "2004-10-24T15:59:03Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 13\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Sample\_the\_Dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8797f3/32.png) [@Sample\_the\_Dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sample_the_Dog)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2004, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-liberal-conservative-spectrum-is-phony/270908/1 "2004-10-24T15:59:03Z")
When the topic of political ideology comes up, it’s not uncommon to hear folks asking where a person stands in the Liberal-Conservative spectrum. When I say I don’t align myself with either camp, I’m almost invariably asked if I’m a “centrist” or which side I’d say I lean toward or some such variation on a theme which assumes that these two ideologies represent a natural spectrum. To me, it’s like asking if I consider myself more Chinese or Nigerian, or somewhere in between. Many years hence, bored schoolkids will have to study to try to understand what the “liberal” and “conservative” platforms were, just as bored schoolkids today have to learn the difference between Whigs and Tories. There are many problems with this Liberal-Conservative mindset. On a general level, it dampens truly independent thinking about individual issues. In everyday practice, it contributes to the sad situation we have today, when “news” venues present opposing right and left spokespersons from the politainment industry to bandy words on an issue and most everyone seems to think that something substantive has been done. Dopers – what say ye? ---
**Author:** ![An\_Arky](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/87869e/32.png) [@An\_Arky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/An_Arky)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2004, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-liberal-conservative-spectrum-is-phony/270908/2 "2004-10-24T16:03:35Z")
Yeah, it’s pretty much a perfect schism based on our basic wiring, perfect for politicians, because there’ll never be a clear enough majority to mandate that they do right by us. ---
**Author:** ![rfgdxm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c0e974/32.png) [@rfgdxm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rfgdxm)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2004, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-liberal-conservative-spectrum-is-phony/270908/3 "2004-10-24T16:22:41Z")
[http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/](http://www.digitalronin.f2s.com/politicalcompass/) This is at least a bit better of a way to look at things. In particular for the US, it shows the clear difference between the Republican and Libertarian idea of being conservative. While they are similar economically, Republicans are socially authoritarian (as in, they want to legislate morality), while Libertarians would be quite content to support gay rights and the legalization of drugs. As for me, my politics are definitely anarcho-syndicalist. I’m about as marginalized as the Libertarians is the US. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2004, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-liberal-conservative-spectrum-is-phony/270908/4 "2004-10-24T16:29:16Z")
Alternative models have been proposed. I started a GD thread on this queston a while back – [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=192457](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=192457). From [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political\_spectrum](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_spectrum) (click link to see the actual charts): > [@](#): > > **Multiplicity of interpretation of the left-right axis** > > There are various different opinions about what is actually being measured along this axis: > > Whether the state should prioritize equality (left) or hierarchy (right). > > Whether the state should prioritize liberty (left) or security (right). > > Whether the government’s involvement with moral issues should be minimal or interventionist. In different historical contexts, either of these positions has been called “left” or “right”. > > Whether the government’s involvement with the economy should be interventionist (left) or laissez-faire (right). Note that certain right-wing governments have engaged in interventionist policies (see dirigisme). > > Whether the government should take care of issues such as health care and retirement benefits (left), or whether individuals should be left to their own devices on such issues (right). > > Whether their opinion on human nature is broadly optimistic (left) or pessimistic (right). > > Support for the economic interests of the poor (left) or the rich (right). > > Fair outcomes (left) versus fair processes (right). This was proposed by Australian Labor Party leader Mark Latham. > > Whether one embraces change (left) or prefers rigorous justification for change (right). This was proposed by Eric Hoffer. > > Whether human nature and society is malleable (left) or fixed (right). This was proposed by Thomas Sowell. > > \ > > **Alternative spectra** > > Some people feel that it is not obvious how these various concepts are related. They say that it is very confusing to speak of the right or the left without indicating what exactly you are referring to. They believe that one should first establish context by defining the axes upon which different positions will be measured. > > Nonetheless, the right-left spectrum is so common as to be taken for granted. Many people even have a hard time conceptualizing any alternative to it. However, numerous alternatives exist, usually having been developed by people who feel their views are not fairly represented on the traditional right-left spectrum. > > Perhaps the simplest alternative to the left-right spectrum was devised as a rhetorical tool during the Cold War. This was a circle which brought together the far right and left ends of the traditional spectrum, equating “extreme socialism” (i.e. the Communist Party) with “extreme conservatism” (i.e. Fascism). This nexus was particularly useful to those opposed to rapprochement with the Soviet Union. > > Another alternative spectrum offered at American Federalist Journal emphasizes the degree of political control, and thus places totalitarianism at one extreme and anarchism (no government at all) at the other extreme. However, the way the American Federalist Journal uses such a measure to show Democrats and Libertarians both close to the two opposite political extremes is arguably ridiculous, with their rather more moderate stances unrealistically exaggerated. Such an error owes more to an apparent ignorance of the policies of those US parties and their distance in relation to the opposite levels of state power. Furthermore, there is the issue of the Journal’s own (conservative) political agenda to take into account. > > Yet another alternative, currently popular among certain environmentalists, uses a single axis to measure what they consider to be the good of the Earth against the good of big business, which is seen as being the force most likely to harm the earth. > > In 1998, political author Virginia Postrel, in her book The Future and Its Enemies, offered a new single axis spectrum that measures one’s view of the future. On one extreme are those who allegedly fear the future and wish to control it, whom Postrel calls stasists. On the other hand are those who want the future to unfold naturally and without attempts to plan and control, for whom she uses the name dynamists. > > Other axes that might merit consideration include: > > Role of the church: Clericalism vs. Anti-clericalism. This axis is not significant in the United States where views of the role of religion tend to get subsumed into the general left-right axis, but in Europe clericalism versus anti-clericalism is much less correlated with the left-right spectrum. > > Urban vs. rural: This axis is also much more significant in European politics than American. > > Foreign policy: interventionism (the nation should exert power abroad to implement its policy) vs. isolationism (the nation should keep to its own affairs) > > Market policy: socialism (government should democratize or control economic productivity) vs. laissez-faire (government should leave the market alone) vs. corporatism (government should subsidize or support existing successful businesses) > > Political violence: pacifism (political views should not be imposed by violent force) vs. militancy (violence is a legitimate or necessary means of political expression). Informally, these people are often referred to as “doves” and “hawks”, respectively. > > Foreign trade: globalization (world economic markets should become integrated and interdependent) vs. autarky (the nation or polity should strive for economic independence) > > Diversity: multiculturalism (the nation should represent a diversity of cultural ideas) vs. assimilationism or nationalism (the nation should represent the dominant ethnic group) > > Participation: Positive Liberty (positive participation in the government) vs. Oligarchy (rule by a limited number of people) > > **Multi-axis models** > > A one-axis model is highly over-simplified, and lumps together fairly different political propositions; in particular, as seen before, there are many ways to define the left-right spectrum, which do not yield the same classifications. > > Several of the political philosophies that have arisen over the past two centuries do not fit on the one-dimensional left/right line, in particular Anarchism and Libertarianism. Anarchism is assumed to be “left”, while Libertarianism is “right”. However, on the one-dimensional spectrum, Anarchism shares almost the same position as Communism, which is obviously inappropriate. Anarchism implies the rejection of government and societal control (as well as private property), while Communist theory implies the control by society of many activities. At the other end of the left/right line, Libertarianism finds itself in the same position as Fascism (or at least in the same position as rigidly authoritarian conservative capitalist governments, often classified as fascist), which is equally inappropriate. > > In order to address these problems, a number of proposals have been made for a two-axis system, which combines two models of the political spectrum as axes. > > The first person to devise such a two-axis system was Hans Eysenck in his 1964 book “Sense and Nonsense in Psychology.” Starting with the traditional “left-right” spectrum Eysenck added a vertical axis that considered “tough-mindedness” (authoritarian tendencies) and “tender-mindedness” (democratic tendencies). The effect of this new axis is that those who have very different views with regard to authority, but have the same “left-right” view (people like Stalin and Noam Chomsky), can be distinguished. > > Similarly, one may wish to consider public/private property issues on the horizontal axis, and a spectrum from individual control of society to collective (or state) control of society on the vertical axis. > > Note that this two-axis model lacks some nuances as to what is referred to as “control”. For example, one may wish to divide the question into issues of personal freedom, and other issues. For instance, up into the 20th century, the United States gave a significant leeway to its citizens with respect to security (right to bear arms…) while at the same time heavily regulating sexual activities, even between adults in private (Comstock Law, sodomy laws…). Furthermore, there is no clear way to locate philosophies such as feminism or environmentalism, even using this two-axis spectrum. A third or even a fourth dimension would be required to accommodate them, and that would make the model far too complex to be of any use. > > The model used by the Political Compass is very similar to Eysenck’s chart, but instead measuring social freedom on the vertical axis, as opposed to “tender” and “tough” -mindedness. > > Similar to the chart used by the Political Compass is the Nolan chart, created by libertarian David Nolan, with an economic and political axes, perpendicular to each other, with the whole chart rotated 45 degrees. This chart shows what he considers as “economic freedom” (issues like taxation, free trade and free enterprise) on the x axis and what he considers as “personal freedom” (issues like drug legalization, abortion and the draft) on the y axis. This puts left-wingers in the left quadrant, libertarians in the top, right-wingers in the right, and Authoritarianism or Communitarians (whom Nolan originally named populists) in the bottom. > > A fourth, very different, two axis model was created by Jerry Pournelle. Pournelle’s model has liberty (a dimension similar to the diagonal of the Nolan chart, with those on the left seeking liberty and those on the right focusing control) perpendicular to belief in the power of one’s political philosophy of choice (with those on the top believing that all the evils their ideology attempts to fight would go away if only their ideals were instituted, and those at the bottom reduced to blind, celebratory attachment to their ideology for its own sake – the fascist who will now do anything to celebrate “greatness”, the anarchist given to tossing bombs around for the fun of it). > > The Friesian Institute have even suggested a three axes spectrum. It combines the economic liberty and personal liberty axes with positive liberty, creating a cube. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/c4cdca/32.png) [@PatriotX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotX)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2004, 5:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-liberal-conservative-spectrum-is-phony/270908/5 "2004-10-24T17:06:59Z")
My initial reaction to the OP was, “Well, duh.” But I suppose that this sort of thing need to be iterated and reiterated repeatedly in the current political climate. So carry on. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2004, 5:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-liberal-conservative-spectrum-is-phony/270908/6 "2004-10-24T17:50:00Z")
The whole left/right dichotomy is different for every country, at every period in time. For instance, here in Israel right means “hawk” and left means “dove”, and that’s it. Everything else is secondary. ---
**Author:** ![ParentalAdvisory](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/53a042/32.png) [@ParentalAdvisory](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ParentalAdvisory)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2004, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-liberal-conservative-spectrum-is-phony/270908/7 "2004-10-24T18:31:22Z")
I hear you. It really bothers me when I take a peticular stance on an issue and all the sudden I’m some kind of hardcore Republican conservative, or a left Liberal Nazi. I prefer to think on my own and take the issues one by one, without taking sides. It’s that whole group mentality thing, it’s hard to shake in this country. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2004, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-liberal-conservative-spectrum-is-phony/270908/8 "2004-10-24T21:42:43Z")
I remember back in 1989-90 – the press referred to the hardline Communists of the Soviet Union as “conservatives,” apparently because they wanted to preserve the system in place, even though that system was based on an ideology that purports to be the opposite of “conservative.” ---
**Author:** ![F.U.Shakespeare](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/aca169/32.png) [@F.U.Shakespeare](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/F.U.Shakespeare)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2004, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-liberal-conservative-spectrum-is-phony/270908/9 "2004-10-24T22:48:04Z")
IMO, your views on social issues tend to be the ones that others define you by. E.g., I have friends who are way to my left on economic issues but consider me a liberal, mainly because I’m an atheist, favor gay rights and (slightly) favor abortion rights. In contrast, my friends who agree with me on these social issues tend to consider me a fellow liberal, even if they’re way left of me economically and on national security. ---
**Author:** ![Sample\_the\_Dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8797f3/32.png) [@Sample\_the\_Dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sample_the_Dog)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2004, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-liberal-conservative-spectrum-is-phony/270908/10 "2004-10-24T23:18:33Z")
**F. U. Shakespeare** : I’m in much the same boat. In fact, I’ve been accused of being “inconsistent” by folks on both “sides” because my views on various issues don’t coincide with conservative or liberal laundry lists. Very odd. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [October 24, 2004, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-liberal-conservative-spectrum-is-phony/270908/11 "2004-10-24T23:59:35Z")
In the old USSR, which were on the left, Marxists or Leninists? In the USA today, which are on the right, liberals or conservatives? See what I’m getting at? As a centre-left Canadian, I find both the major US parties lie well to the right of what for me is centre, although the Republicans are futher to the right than the democrats due to their preference for a more intrusive government that resists social equality and dictates personal morality. ---
**Author:** ![rfgdxm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c0e974/32.png) [@rfgdxm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rfgdxm)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-liberal-conservative-spectrum-is-phony/270908/12 "2004-10-25T00:03:00Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > In the old USSR, which were on the left, Marxists or Leninists? In the USA today, which are on the right, liberals or conservatives? See what I’m getting at? As a centre-left Canadian, I find both the major US parties lie well to the right of what for me is centre, although the Republicans are futher to the right than the democrats due to their preference for a more intrusive government that resists social equality and dictates personal morality. Canada is overall to the left of the average in the US. For example, in Canada abolishing national health care would be very unpopular. In the US, even the Dems aren’t pushing for national health care today. ---
**Author:** ![Sample\_the\_Dog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8797f3/32.png) [@Sample\_the\_Dog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sample_the_Dog)\ **Post date:** [October 25, 2004, 12:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-liberal-conservative-spectrum-is-phony/270908/13 "2004-10-25T00:27:28Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > the Republicans are futher to the right than the democrats due to their preference for a more intrusive government that resists social equality and dictates personal morality. But see, this is where it all breaks down anyway. You got “right wingers” like Bob Barr of Georgia pointing out that Bush’s policies, for example, aren’t “conservative” at all. Foreign intervention, increasing government employment rolls, high deficits, favoring Constitutional amendments, increasing executive power… On the other hand, I’ve heard self-identified “liberals” call Bush policies “fascist” (usually with vague references to the Patriot Act – which, to be fair to them, is now facing what may turn out to be a serious Constitutional challenge over “secret searches” with gag rules attached). So not only do the “liberal” and “conservative” camps not define the ends of a natural political spectrum… hell, their own adherents can’t seem to agree on what their platforms really are.