Talk:Political spectrum/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Political spectrum. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

I noticed that the entire Vosem Chart was deleted. This includes the Vosem Chart article as well as the link from this page. I missed the delete debate, so what happened?

I'm not sure what happens to VfD debates once they are closed. Does anyone else know?
To the anonymous person who posted this (1) Please add questions at the bottom of the page, not the top and (2) please don't edit out earlier questions, even your own. Use strikethrough if you need to change them. Especially as an anonymous participant, there is no way for anyone else to know whether you are editing your own comments or some other anonymous participant's (yet another advantage of actually getting an account).

Jmabel 01:43, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, and I now have an account. I also have a question lower down.

Harvestdancer

Since this space is already discussing Vosem, I'll use it as such. Anyway, back to the Vosem Chart issue. While it is of very limited publication, coming form one sourse (a Kuro5hin article) doees not it being different merit it a one-liner at the end of the Multi-axis models section? I agree with a whole article on it being deleted, but it could occupy a niche like the Friesian model, a one sentence reference and an external link. Comments? Harvestdancer 18:52, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)Harvestdancer

Tim, this makes a good attempt to be fair but it overlooks a couple key points. There are a variety of political spectra, but most people have a clear concept of the one to which "left" and "right" refer. In fact, if you look at the one presented by the advocates for self-government, you will notice that the horizontal axis is the same left-right spectrum everyone else uses. So while people may debate over the precise definition of that axis, its existence is not nearly so controversial.

The other thing is that the particular diagram to which you refer is fairly non-discriminatory. Inasmuchas it can't distinguish between libertarianism and anarchism - one of which has policies much like capitalism, one of which has policies much like socialism - and again between fascism and marxism. In short, they have identified different ideologies by pinching the diagram off into a diamond, which is probably more for the purposes of popularizing libertarianism (something the site obviously tries to do) then accuracy. -- JoshuaGrosse

Joshua - The two axes are 'personal self-government' and 'economic self-government'. Which is the horizontal axis?

Economic self-government: the one that showed up as horizontal on the chart, of course. :)

But personal self-government is equally horizontal on the chart. The axes lie parallel like two AA batteries in a walkman: The positive next to the others negative.

The diagram can be represented like this: ++ +- -+ --

Oh...I see what they're doing. In that case the corners of the graph are grossly mislabeled - a completely totalitarian government is authoritarian whether or not they allow a free market. But all in all, it's the square is suggested, only tilted in a non-standard way. Usually left-right is portrayed as an economic spectrum. I'm very sorry for the confusion. I still say the source is biased, though. -- JoshuaGrosse

Also - I do not agree that there is similarity between socialism and anarchism. As I would define them, socialism attempts to maintain social order with political institutions, and without cultural or economic institutions. Anarchism seeks to maintain social order with economic and cultural institutions, and without political institutions. As they are conventionally understood, socialism means more government, anarchism no government. So even if you don't like my definition, common usage place these two at opposite extremes.

Just as libertarian is usually applied in a narrow sense to exclude libertarian socialists (~anarcho-syndicalists), it seems anarchism is usually applied in a narrow sense to exclude anarcho-capitalists (~free market libertarians). It's in this sense that I was using the term. Obviously anarcho-syndicalism has strong ties to socialism and free market libertarianism has strong ties to capitalism, but the two systems aren't distinguished on the diamond. A square or circle would be much better in terms of actually representing ideologies.

Other than those, though, I don't really have any complaints other than perhaps a slight editorial tone (fear the future and wish to control it). And, of course, none of this is meant as negative criticism, my being too uncertain to try writing political articles myself. :) -- JoshuaGrosse

Tim, you wrote:

In modern Western countries, the spectrum is usually defined along an axis of conservatism ("the right") versus socialism ("the left", called liberalism in the United States).

I think we need to find a better word for The Right than "conservatism" because that means, after all, something quite different in countries where the tradition for decades has been socialism. Perhaps there isn't a single word--perhaps it's simply "support for traditional values and some support for capitalism."

Equating liberalism with socialism is ridiculous. That is like equating conservatism with fundamentalist theocracy, which is only the "Neo" or "compassionate" branch. There aren't many liberal socialists nowadays.

The bounds of "the Right" strain to encompass big-business military-industrial types as well as radical or populist nationalists who may hate corporations as much as they hate "liberals".

The matter of whether the Right "supports capitalism", too, can be questioned: to the present rightist American regime, for instance, "supporting capitalism" entails subsidies and military support for business, whereas to the free-market capitalist these represent the destruction of capitalism just as much as nationalization of factories would. --FOo

It's a religious crusade, like fascism; capitalism just happens to be where the money and power is. That is the "Neo" or "compassionate" branch now in power. The others have mixed motives, but support for the corporate state is the standard for the mainstream Right and Left in the US due to the two-party system and private campaign financing. Monopoly is the natural result of free market capitalism in many sectors, so whether they are "saving" or "destroying" capitalism is a matter of interpretation. (BTW, I think regulated capitalism is the best system, just regulated to favor generally free markets with decent labor and environmental standards rather than oligopolies and destructive subsidies.)

Fairandbalanced 01:57, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

N8chz -- I am not sure that the "dove/hawk" distinction is the same that I was trying to make regarding political violence. I was thinking more of the "Gandhi/Arafat" axis: not should our nation use war to enforce its policies abroad? but rather should our party use violence to get what it wants domestically?

I think both are useful, though the words "pacifist" and "militant" are too fuzzy to clarify between them. (For one thing, they aren't even really opposites. A pacifist is someone who rejects violence for any purpose, but a militant isn't someone for whom violence is the first answer -- it's someone who believes political violence has become necessary in the present situation.)

For the "dove/hawk" distinction regarding aggression abroad, I can't think of any good "formal" words. Those two are good, though. --FOo

The "right" is not always in favour of the free-market. Need to make clear that all the possible left/right divisions are only ever points of view.

A couple points of concern. One, the association of Liberalism with Socialism isn't particularly accurate nor unbiased. United States Liberalism does not call for government control of most industries.

Second and more broadly, I think the article gives far too much weight to the libertarian idea of a spectrum. It's another valid spectrum, of course, but the weight of text given to it gives it more validity than the others, which does not particularly represent the cultural importance of that idea in US, or certainly Western, politics. -User:Gacohen

The Libertarian two-axis system, that is to say the 'World's Smallest Political Quiz", currently gets two paragraphs. The mainstream left-right spectrum gets three paragraphs, including the historical one; most of the other spectra get one paragraph. Please feel free to expand upon any of them.

To clarify, the PoliticalCompass.org two-axis system is not the same as the Libertarian WSPQ -- its axes are 45 degrees off, and it is not intended as a rhetorical tool for libertarianism or any other particular political system. It does use the term "libertarian", but the authors' analysis suggests that they believe there is a strong correlation between pro-liberty and leftist views (and between pro-authoritarian and rightist views), which most libertarians would disagree with. --FOo

The "Historical Origin" is questionable, since the "first estate" was not the nobility -- it was the Church. The nobility were the second estate. Further, I was under the impression that the terms "left" and "right" dated to after the Revolution, with the revolutionaries to the left and the counter-revolutionaries to the right. --FOo

I think the article should cite who divided up the political spectrum in America as follows, because it bears no resemblance to what I read in the newspapers and see and TV every day:

There are different opinions about what is actually being measured along this axis:

Whether the state should prioritize equality(left) or liberty(right).
Whether the government's involvement with the economy should be *interventionist(left) or laissez-faire(right).
Whether Church and State should be separated(left) or integrated(right).
Fair outcomes(left) versus fair processes(right)

Is this the Libertarian view of the political spectrum, or what?

(cutting in) It's a listing of a number of (conflicting) opinions about the left-right spectrum. in fact, Libertarians tend to view policies using a 2D model, and reject the 1D model as too simplistic. Martin

I thought in America the left-right spectrum was mostly the "liberal left" agenda vs. the "conservative right" agenda. That is, each side has a whole laundry list of things it wants, and I think they should be listed specifically first, before venturing into an analysis that tries to break down these positions into "principles" of some sort.

(cutting in) In America the left-right spectrum is probably commonly seen as Left=Democrats, Right=Republicans. In the UK the left-right spectrum is commonly seen as Left=Labour, Right=Conservatives. I'm sure similar things could be said about most countries with a two party system, but that doesn't do much to give a world view... Martin

Also, I don't think it's correct that conservatives don't care about "outcomes", as the article currently characterizes them. So it would be more neutral to say that Mr. X says that liberals care about outcomes while...

--Uncle Ed 19:15 Apr 2, 2003 (UTC)

You're making two assumptions here:

that conservatives are "right wing"
that "fair outcomes versus fair processes" is correct.

Both these assumptions are not supported by the article, which clearly lists "fair outcomes versus fair processes" as an opinion, and does not state that conservatives are right wing. Martin

Some comments on the two-axis section:

I'm not sure why so much of this section focuses on quizes. The point of this article should be to describe the different systems, not to mention every site's quiz that you can take. Everything above the "Nolan Chart" paragraph is presenting varioius quizes about the Nolan Chart, before actually describing the Nolan Chart itself. I think we need to rework this section to present the Nolan Chart, and then just a mention of the various quizes that address it.

Wouldn't left-right form a diagonal line, rather than an arc, across the Nolan Chart?

Back to the quizes - why is it "unfortunate" that no quiz exists for the Pournelle model? Why not just describe it?

(As a side note, what's up with the Political Compass quiz? It seems a little weird. For example "Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all" and "Astrology accurately explains many things" What's that have to do with anything?)

Axlrosen 18:29, 14 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I won't speak to the first two, but on the last one, the designers of that quiz do note that some of the questions are intended to draw out the respondent's similarity of views to particular political figures and movements. I can't say exactly what they were thinking on those two questions.

However, a disdain for abstract or non-representational art is sometimes thought of as conservative or reactionary -- and both Nazism and Stalinism officially opposed abstract art. As for the astrology question, I have no idea -- favoring astrology could be considered anti-rationalist and hence anti-liberal or it could be considered "new age" and hence likely socialist. --FOo 01:22, 15 Sep 2003 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by the latest edits by Wiwaxia:

Can you integrate the terms "stasism" and "dynamism" into their definitions that follow, so that it's clear which is which? It seems like you've listed them in reverse order than their definitions appear.

The "Diversity" axis is now multiculturalism vs. nationalism vs. movements like Afrocentrism. Is this supposed to be a single straight-line continuum? What exactly are "movements like Afrocentrism", isn't that an example of nationalism?

Not sure I understand the bottom part of the Pournelle chart, can you explain it a little better? Are all fascists and anarchists examples of this, or just some of them?

Axlrosen 21:56, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The entry for defining ethnic nationalism versus multiculturalism reads "Diversity: multiculturalism (the nation should represent a diversity of cultural ideas) vs. ethnic nationalism (the nation should represent the dominant ethnic group)". Unless they live in Africa (which most of them don't), Afrocentrists are not supporting the dominant ethnic group. This is a sort of countercultural coercion, a belief that there should be a single ethnic group or culture represented by the ideals the government and political structure favors, but that that group should in this case be people of Sub-Saharan African descent. Even Afrocentrists in the West Indies push their Afrocentrism on a world basis, not to the government of Jamaica where they already represent a majority. Therefore perhaps the sequence should now move in a straight line from nationalism to multiculturalism to movements like Afrocentrism, with multiculturalism in the middle seen as a fulcral "balance". Wiwaxia 23:05, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Afrocentrism as it is described on that page seems to be chiefly a view towards history. Are you talking about Black nationalism? If so, I think it may need to extend to a different axis. I intended the multiculturalism axis to distinguish polities and views which explicitly attempt to include many ethnic and cultural heritages in the nation, and those which tie national identity closely to ethnic or cultural identity. An example of the former might be Canada, or the U.S. on a good day. Nasty examples of the latter might be Nazi Germany or Serbia, or the desires of the Ku Klux Klan for the United States. More benign "ethnic nationalist" policies might be France's language defensiveness, Israel's immigrations policies, or many things about Japan.

If a purported "Afrocentric" or "Black nationalist" group or partisan advocates nationhood that is tied to a single political idea of black ethnicity, then on this particular axis it is being ethnic-nationalist, not multiculturalist. The fact that it is doing so for a sometime-oppressed ethnic group doesn't change it. I don't mean this as an accusation of "reverse racism" but as a simple description. Multicultural doesn't just mean "not white" -- you can't have multiculturalism without the multi.

BTW, it wasn't my intention to imply that the multicultural end of the axis is "good" and the other "bad". There are evil forms of ethnic nationalism (such as genocide, ghettoization, and so forth) as well as benign ones (like France's language policies). Likewise, there are harmful forms of multiculturalism, such as the rift between secular and Muslim law that is presently causing such strife in Nigeria. --FOo 02:35, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

So if you don't like including Black Nationalism as a third point on the line, either on an end opposite to nationalism or with multiculturalism as the other extreme, then where can it go? It can't be classified under "nationalism" because Blacks aren't the dominant ethnic group. And you already noted that you don't like placing Black Nationalism as a subcategory of multiculturalism (after all, it wouldn't be multiculturalism if there were only one ethnic group given state approval). So ruling out including it in either of the two existing categories or creating a third category, where does Black Nationalism go? Wiwaxia 12:22, 9 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Wiwaxia, I agree with Fubar, Afrocentrism or Black Nationalism seems very similar to or a subset of nationalism (though perhaps the definiton of "nationalism" in the article needs to be expanded). Plus, even if we kept it, it needs a better name than "movements like Afrocentrism". I'm going to delete it, but feel free to fix it up if you think it's still viable.

How about my question on the Pournelle chart? Can you fix that part up so it clearer?

Axlrosen 21:33, 8 Oct 2003 (UTC)

"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" <--- Not all anarchists and fascists, only those who fit this description

I removed this line from the explanation of left vs. right:

"How much participation an individual should have, also known as Positive Liberty, first detailed by Isaiah Berlin."

After reading the Positive Liberty page, this doesn't sound like left vs. right but libertarianism vs. authoritarianism. So if anything it belongs in the Alternative Spectra list. But I'm not sure how to phrase it. It's not Negative Liberty vs. Positive Liberty, because almost everyone is for Negative Liberties. It's more like whether Positive Liberties should exist or not.

Also, according to the Positive Liberty page, "how much participation an individual should have" is an alternate and controversial definition, not the main feature of Positive Liberty.

-- Maybe Positive Liberty is poorly defined, but it is certinaly worth a mention. Negative Liberty is things that the Government doesn't stop you from doing, Positive Liberty is where the Government actively allows you to do something. So a belief in Positive Liberty means that a Government would support welfare, a National Health service, etc. These are things that the right (with the acception of very left-wing paternalistic conservatives (who support welfare for a different reason)) supports.

Slizor.

Under the various characterizations of left versus right User:Slizor's recent edit removed:

Whether the government should be secular and separate itself from religious beliefs (left) or should take a stance of religious morality (right).
Fair outcomes (left) versus fair processes (right)
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

Replacing these with:

Whether their opinion on human nature is broadly optimistic (left) or pessimistic (right).

I don't have any real problem with the addition (although I would argue that this would be a contingent characteristic of leftists and rightists, not what would characterize someone as such: for example, Ronald Reagan seems to have been essentially optimistic bout human nature, but that does not make him a man of the left). However, I think the deletions are entirely unjustified. In particular, the views of Hoffer and Sowell seem to deserve mention simply becuase of whose views they are. As for the one on religion, it's arguable, and I'd let go of that if there is no consensus to restore it (after all, the words "religious" and "secular" are perfectly good words, why confuse the matter by saying that "right" and "left" are somehow their stalking horses). I think the "Fair outcomes (left) versus fair processes (right)" is entirely justifiable: Look at the rhetoric of the fight over Affirmative Action in the US.

In short, unless someone states a strong case to the contrary, I plan to restore the Hoffer, Sowell, and outcomes/processes bullet points in about 24 hours. I don't want an edit war here, so please let's talk if you have a problem with that. -- Jmabel 01:15, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Why the hell did our "scissor" delete those? This deletion leads to there being less, rather than more, in the article. I'm with you all the way, Jmabel. Wiwaxia 05:11, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I have restored the cut content, except for the one on religion, which (as explained above) I think was appropriate to delete. -- Jmabel 18:06, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I view them as incorrect, thus I cut them. Surely you would want a shorter article that is more accurate then a vague long one?

As for the points I removed.

"Fair outcome versus fair processes" - I object to this from the leftist view that Capitalism (which rightists support) has distinctly unfair processes and that a fair outcome is a result of the process itself being fair. To use the example of Affirmative Action is unfair as it is a centerist, modern Liberal idea, not one of the left.

The Hoffer point I do feel as wrong (certianly the Thatcher Government in the UK was staunchly in favour of change, it is only really Traditional Conservatives who want rigourous justification for change. However I will accept the view just on the basis of who they are. I will also accept the Sowell one, although disagree on the point that people on the right think society is "fixed".

Slizor

I agree with your opinion that Hoffer and Sowell are wrong about what "left" and "right" mean in common discourse, but reread the context. This is not even an article about Left-right politics (q.v.)! This is an article about different views of the political spectrum. Note that the list is introduced by, "There are various different opinions about what is actually being measured along this axis." I would say that both of these prominent figures chose to look at a different political axis than the one usually termed "left-right" and each hijacked those terms for their purpose. Note that the article then goes on to talk about other (differently designated) spectra.

It is quite possible that all of this could be clearer in the article (to which I have contributed a little, but I did not write the sentences in question). However, I have no doubt that Hoffer and Sowell's respective views of the political spectrum merit mention in an encyclopedia article on political spectrum. I think it would be appropriate to make a case that they were really each proposing alternative spectra and that their use of the words "left" and "right" was arbitrary and misleading. It was not, however, lightly dismissable.

By the way, on Thatcher, I don't know if you ever have read Alexander Cockburn on Thatcher. Cockburn ought to be "left" enough for anyone (and, I suppose, too "left" for most). Needless to say, he didn't like Thatcher any better than most of us lefties, but he made an interesting case that, besides her obvious anti-socialist views (taking socialism in its absolutely broadest sense, so that it includes pretty much all ameliorative social programs), she was equally resolute in her demolition of vestiges of British feudalism. Basically, his case was that she was simultaneously completing (or strongly continuing) Britain's slow bourgeios revolution, while simultaneously rolling back everything (or all she could) that went beyond that.

-- Jmabel 07:34, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

A recent edit by User:Fairandbalanced changed:

"(In the United States, the term Liberalism refers to a wide range of left-of-center politics; in Europe, this same term refers to a wide range of center-right politics.)"

to

"In North America and Europe, the term Liberalism refers to a wide range of center-left political viewpoints."

Certainly "the United States" (my wording) was too narrow, because Canadian liberals are center-left; as for substituting "North American" rather than "the United States and Canada", I honestly don't know how the term is used in Mexico. I suspect it is not heavily used there, or I would probably know. I'm not sure: in a context like this, do most people read "North American" as including or excluding Mexico? I suppose British "Liberals" are also center-left; I gather, though, that Australian "Liberals" are rather on the right, so we can't say "English-speaking world"...

More important, though, I believe that most European "Liberal" parties are center-right. I'm pretty comfortable saying that about Germany and I'd be surprised if it were otherwise in the Netherlands or Belgium. Could someone who knows Continental European politics please weigh in? The point of my sentence (which I now see wasn't strictly accurate) was that there are parts of the world where "Liberal" means center-left and parts where it means center right; also that North American (US and Canadian) Liberalism is a very different matter than European Liberalism. Again, my sentence was not on the mark, but I want to get these points into that paragraph or thereabouts. I also want to have my facts in a row before I re-edit.

Fairandbalanced, do you have any further thoughts on this now that I've clarified what I was driving at?

-- Jmabel 07:55, 29 Jan 2004 (UTC)

My idea was to limit the definition to English-language countries because no translation is perfect. So far it appears the left-handed version applies in the North Hemisphere, the right-handed version in the South. :^) Fairandbalanced 21:25, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm still unhappy with the dominance of the Nolan chart. I certainly feel there should be less on this POV (and very biased) chart. Slizor 10:17, 2004 Mar 19 (UTC)

Maybe you can move some of the juice on this chart into the Nolan chart article then. Wiwaxia 04:56, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The two recent additions to the left-right dichotomy seem to me to be pretty useless:

Whether the state should prioritize security (right) or liberty (left).
Whether the government's involvement with moral issues should be interventionist(right) or minimal (left).

Neither has any attribution as to who has characterized left and right as meaning this, and both seem absurd in terms of the original use during the French Revolution: there were advocates of both of these positions on both the left and right. To state what should be obvious, Robespierre -- certainly a paragidmatic leftist -- was no friend of individual liberty over national security, nor did he keep the government out of the realm of morality (consider the Cult of the Divine Being).

All of this is better discussed at Left-Right politics. I'd really rather see this section reduced and cross referenced to where the topic is more seriously engaged. Does anyone have a problem with that? -- Jmabel 18:31, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

As wikipedia defines it, authoritarianism describes "a state which enforces strong and sometimes oppressive measures against the population". Here it used to describe the opposite of a libertarian. I fall into that side of the spectrum, supporting liberal economics but being somewhat socially conservative. However, I don't advocate anything not espoused by either the Democrats or Republicans, certainly not strong or oppressive measures aginst the population, and nowhere near what was done by regimes known as authoritarian. Could the term be changed to something more accurate, less biased, such as the original 'populist', or the more recent 'communitarian'? -juan, 9:13 am, 6/18

Coming from a very different politics than Juan, I would have to agree that "communitarian" is far less contentious than "authoritarian" as an antithesis to "libertarian". Either we need a discussion as to how each could be seen as an antithesis, or we should simply go with "communitarian". Almost everyone who believes in liberal democracy would like to see him/herself as the opposite of an authoritarian, not just the libertarians. If this is at all confusing (it may be: "communitarian" is a less common term), I'll gladly expand on it, just let me know. -- Jmabel 17:31, Jun 18, 2004 (UTC)

Does anybody else think

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).

is already covered by

Whether the government's involvement with the economy should be interventionist (left) or laissez-faire (right).

and

Support for the economic interests of the poor (left) or the rich (right).

or is it just me? Harvestdancer

Agree completely. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:26, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Disagree partially, there is no reason to associate aversion to government "provided" health care and retirement as an economic interest of the poor or rich issue. The terms right and left are explicitly overloaded here. Poor persons through out history have often refused not only the public dole but voluntary handouts, preferring an ethic of work and self sufficiency. Even advocates for the poor, such as true international socialists have opposed luxurious benefits for the "poor" in countries like the US or northern europe, while hundreds or thousands could be saved in the third would for the cost of one heart bypass or kidney bypass. --Silverback 21:18, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Terms

Ok, I replaced the term 'authoritarian' in the text with 'communitarian', which I also wrote a rough article about at Communitarianism (ideology). The chart, however, still needs to be updated, and some of the text possible should be changed further to reflect the change of terms.

Jmabel, if you're still there, would you mind taking a look at the article on communitarianism, particularly the chart?

My edits

I found a two axis model which predates the Nolan Chart by 6 years. As it is no longer the first two-axis political spectrum it has lost its historical significance and with it, its reason to remain in the article. The Nolan Chart is clearly an ideologically biased chart with little influence on the outside world, it is insignificant. However, I expect that someone will add in something about the Nolan Chart again - keep it short it is ideologically and realistically (and now historically) marginalised.

One other thing: Is the Pournelle Chart the same as the Eysenck chart? If so does it deserve a mention? Slizor 12:23, 2004 Jun 30 (UTC)

You what? You removed the entire Nolan Chart? Are you crazy? Sure, it may have been proven not to be the first political spectrum based on two axes (although it's not like that's well known), but that alone doesn't give it "no more historical significance"! The significance of something for a Wikipedia article doesn't just stop at things that were pioneers, provably the very first to do something. HOW COULD WE HAVE AN ARTICLE ON THE "POLITICAL SPECTRUM" WITH NO MENTION OF THE NOLAN CHART? I mean, that would be like writing an article on grunge bands without mentioning Nirvana. It would be like having an article on fast food chains with no mention of McDonald's, or having an article on the gross-out movie genre without mentioning American Pie, or having an article on educational children's shows without mentioning Sesame Street, or having an article on all rock bands without mentioning the Beatles. It would be like writing an article on rodent species without mentioning the domestic mouse (Mus musculus), or writing an article on conifers without mentioning the pine tree (Pinus sylvestris), or writing an article on TV moms without mentioning June Cleaver, or writing an article on the year 1941 without mentioning Pearl Harbor! (No, something that happened on January 1, 1941 would have "come first".) You could even say it would be like writing an article on American Republicans without mentioning Ronald Reagan! Face it, the Nolan Chart is better known than the Eysenck Chart, the Pournelle Chart, the Vosem Chart, the Friesian Cube or even the Economist's two-dimensional representation of cultural beliefs (which I plan to write an addition to this article on soon), possibly than all of them combined. So we can't just suddenly delete this just because one of its claims ("The first person to represent political ideologies on two different axes . . .") is no longer known to be true.

Oh great. I can't believe this. We've got to get it back in here, guys. Do you all agree against Slizor's edit? Wiwaxia 04:43, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't put it nearly as strongly as you but, yes, this is one of the few articles where I think the Nolan chart deserves a mention. It is probably the best-known two-dimensional political spectrum chart. (Although I think that's a little like being the world's tallest midget...) -- Jmabel 05:16, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Sorry for the intrusion, but I'd like to mention that, at least in recent years, the world's best-known two-dimensional political spectrum chart is most likely the Political Compass. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:29, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Ah, even that seems to run on the four categories basis of the Nolan Chart: typically "liberal" (on both economic and cultural issues), typically "conservative" (on both economic and cultural issues), liberal on economic issues and conservative on cultural issues, and liberal on cultural issues and conservative on economic issues. You can instantly tell whether the Nolan Chart classifies you as a liberal, a conservative, a statist or a libertarian by which quadrant you fall into on that ubiquitously seeded Net test. Now the Pournelle Chart, on the other hand . . . that's an entirely different two dimensions. 24.4.127.164 04:57, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Whether the state should prioritize individual rights () or public rights ()

Somebody thinks the opposite of what I did. Better say nothing than something exactly wrong, eh? Comments on this sentance? Sam [Spade] 20:49, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I disagree that any side can be classified as one or the other. For instance, both neo-conservatives and socialists are very commited to the idea of "community". There are also major differences between say a left-wing anarchist and a Stalinist on that issue, even though on a sole axis they would be in very similar places.

Also: "Whether the state should prioritize equality (left) or hierarchy (right)."

People on the right do not necessarily believe in hierarcy, right-wing anarchists come to mind. Shouldn't it be something about economic equality and economic inequality? "Whether the state should prioritize security (right) or liberty (left)."

Again, right-wing anarchists come to mind. "Whether the government's involvement with moral issues should be interventionist(right) or minimal (left)."

And again. "Fair outcomes (left) versus fair processes (right)."

See, now I have a major gripe with this one. Certainly any ideology which does not fully embrace capitalism will not see it as a "fair process" - Capitalism is distinctly unfair. Slizor 21:09, 2004 Jul 3 (UTC)

wow, thats alot of POV based on premises I don't agree with. Sam [Spade] 21:21, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, it seems the right wants to control what you do privately (morals) and the left wants to control what you do publicly (environment, etc.) That's what I was thinking. I dunno about the economics, seems no side left or right wants laissez-faire economy. --DanielCD 22:51, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I always say that behind closed doors, they all agree on a few things. Raising taxes, reducing freedom, and laughing w their corporate friends all the way to the bank ;) Sam [Spade] 05:27, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There's an awful lot of "nevertheless" and "however" in the article. It reads more like a debate than like an exposition of what significant thinkers have thought. Not very encyclopedic. I'm busy elsewhere, but someone relatively neutral should take a shot at editing this. -- Jmabel 01:39, Jul 26, 2004 (UTC)

Differing views with regard to authority

"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."

Noam Chomsky has the same views with regard to authority as Stalin. -- Fogger 09:38, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

... and no doubt you will soon be selling shares in your green-cheese mine on the moon.

That statement is so far off the mark that maybe I should leave it unresponded to, but I will say (as I've said only about 3 times anyone participating in Wikipedia) that at least you've done us the useful service of letting us know that we should never take seriously anything you say about politics. -- Jmabel 22:13, Sep 7, 2004 (UTC)

While Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge was slaughtering 20 percent of Cambodia's population, Chomsky rationalized and denied the genocide, and referred to the place as being reminiscent of France after liberation from Nazi rule:

http://www.jim.com/chomsdis.htm

It seems I need to remind you about the fact that while Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge were slaughtering 20 percent of Cambodia's population, nobody knew about it. Reliable information didn't come to light until Pol Pot was removed from power - thus Noam Chomsky had no way of knowing what was really going on when he wrote that article. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:39, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Chomsky depicted Stalinist North Vietnam as democracy and true freedom in _At War With Asia_:

http://www.chomsky.info/articles/19700813.htm

http://www.no-treason.com/Starr/3.html

http://frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=12904

Heh, well, if you compare it with the dictatorship in South Vietnam, it sure does look like democracy and freedom... -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:39, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Chomsky rationalized the Soviet domination of Czechoslovakia and Hungary as defense forced upon the Soviet Union by the U.S.:

http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/dd/dd-c01-s06.html

And he was right. Neither the USSR nor the USA could survive in the Cold War without their respective puppet states. The USSR let go of its puppets in 1989, and two years later it collapsed. The same thing would have happened to the USA if everybody else in the world went communist. It's simple realpolitik, my friend. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 14:39, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Given these facts, it is not unreasonable to assume that Chomsky has the same views on authority as Stalin.

--Fogger 02:37, 6 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Based on things Donald Rumsfeld said about Saddam Hussein in the mid-1980s, it would be exactly as easy to say the same about Rumsfeld having "the same views on authority as Saddam Hussein". But, not being a demagogue, I wouldn't make that assertion. -- Jmabel 02:51, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

Human nature

I removed the following sentence from the article:

Whether their opinion on human nature is broadly optimistic (left) or pessimistic (right).

This was changed by an anon to the exact oppostite, and since it can actually be convincingly argued both ways, I don't think it makes much sense as a criterion for distinguishing left and right. Feel free to disagree and reinsert :p -- Ferkelparade π 07:16, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Someone should find citation on this: there is actually a pretty good literature on the notion that conservatism involves a pessimistic view of immutable human nature whereas liberalism and socialism both see human nature as more mutable. However, without citation (and probably expansion) this isn't much use. It would be nice if someone would follow that up. -- Jmabel | Talk 21:23, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)
Compare the optimism of Ronald Reagan ("It's morning in America") with the pessimism of Jimmy Carter (America's malaise).
Well, here I would say that you are comparing two conservatives. And yes, Reagan's (and Thatcher's) optimism has set a very interesting tone: I think a case could be made that is part of what sets them apart from what prior to their time was called conservatism (though they are certainly both on the right). I guess the deletion is fine; it lacked a citation, anyway, but if someone wanted to restore is with a good citation for an important writer who made each of the two opposite, conflicting claims, it would probably be an interesting addition. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:29, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)
Jimmy Carter belongs to the Democratic Party, which is the left-most of the dominant two political parties of the United States; he is no exception within his party and is not a conservative.

4th Quadrant described by Nolan Chart is a mess

... and not just in this article. Here, and across Wikipedia terms used include 'communitarian' 'statist' and 'authoritarian'. I believe this should be unified under the term communitarian, unless it could be shown that other, distinct ideologies exist there. First, statism is defined as wikipedia as "central government that implements economic planning, or policy." This applies to liberalism as well, and is in no way unique to this quadrant. Authoritarianism is similar, decribed as prescribing "strong and sometimes oppressive measures against the population". This could be liberal, communitarian, or conservative. Both of these being offensive terms, I find it a bit biased that they are ascribed solely to this quadrant... maybe it has something to do with the fact the chart was taken directly from a libertarian website, the ideological opposite. Finally, communitarianism is an actual ideology, wheras statism and authoritarianism are not. Juan Ponderas 03:39, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Authoritarianism certainly can be an ideology. Consider Führerprinzip.

I'm not sure that's what's intended here though. What the "fourth quadrant" claims to describe is a political preference (not necessarily an ideology) that desires government to impose or maintain order both upon economic action (labor, trade, charity, investment) and upon culture and morals (speech, media, religion, sexual activity, drugs, etc.)

I do not think that the Nolan Chart describes ideologies. Most people do not have ideologies; that is to say, well-worked-out structures of political beliefs, derived from first principles. Most everyone, though, has preferences, and these can indeed be described in various ways. "Authoritarian" is not at all an inappropriate word for that set of preferences which hold that government must be a strong authority to direct people's actions in all spheres of life.

There are a couple of facts which cast the Nolan Chart and similar charts into doubt for me. The first is that people are not actually equidistributed across the political spectra. As you can see on The Political Compass's charts of candidates on their similar chart (which is 45° rotated from Nolan's) there is a certain degree of correlation between the axes, in both US and UK politics at least -- with a notable exception.

On Political Compass's charts, parties such as the Republicans, Tories, Democrats, Labour, and Greens all fall on an arc from right-authoritarian to centrist to left-center. They argue that this shows that there is indeed a strong left-right spectrum, with leftists being less authoritarian than rightists. However, Liberal Democrats (UK) and Libertarians (big "L", US) are not on this arc. This is, of course, the point of the Nolan Chart -- to show that the Libertarian position is indeed neither "left" in the sense of the Greens nor "right" in the sense of Bush, Kerry, and Blair. --FOo 17:32, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Führerprinzip doesn't appear to me to be a political ideology. In any case, looking at it only as authority is a somewhat limited point of view. How would gay marriage fit in? Maybe something like social security could loosely be considered authoritarian by the description you provided, but it is never used that way, either in Wikipedia or among common usage. And again, authoritarianism doesn't only apply to this quadrant by the definition given by Wikipedia.Juan Ponderas 03:09, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Authoritarians tend to have homosexuals publicaly beaten and then sent away to a concentration camp where they can be worked to death. They support social security (particularly for veterans) unless they are ill enough to require institutionalization, in wehich case they just kill them. Forget ideology, thats not relevant. Pay attention rather to methodology, which Führerprinzip is a form of. Sam [Spade] 18:03, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"publicly beaten and sent to concentration camps"!!! Well, as the fourth quadrant on the Nolan chart is no more socially conservative than the conservative quadrant, then labeling that as authoritarian makes your statements apply equally to conservatives. But while we're at this, authoritarianism as commonly defined applies equally to the radical ends of both conservatism and communitarianism. Here are the two problems with labeling the communitarian quadrant as authoritarian. 1) By the given definition of authoritarianism, it does not apply solely to communitarians, but rather to conservatism also. 2) It is giving a radical form in that quadrant while more giving more moderate forms to others. Using it is the equivalent of using 'communism' for liberalism, 'anarchism' for libertarianism, and 'nazism' for conservatism.

? Communism isn't liberal, and Nazism isn't conservative. Sam [Spade] 21:32, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nazism is not conservative, granted, but communism is in the liberal quadrant. And anarchism is in the libertarian quadrant. Juan Ponderas 23:21, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Liberalism and Libertarian are roughly synonymous. I take it your american? You must mean Liberalism in America. Sam [Spade] 02:08, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I'm American. Is that your last objection? Juan Ponderas 02:36, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I donno, do you have more stuff to say? ;) Sam [Spade] 02:39, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, here's my plan. First, go the article on the Nolan chart, and see if I get contact the original author of the Nolan chart on that page, so that he could change "communism/fascism" to communitarianism. Replace the current Nolan chart on this page with a modified version of that one. If he cannot be contacted, I can make one, and probably a better looking one. Replace all relevant text in all relevant articles. Juan Ponderas 03:09, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But isn't the Nolan chart a documented thing that Nolan created? Which is to say, even if we think Nolan is wrong, the Nolan chart should continue to represent what Nolan said. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:49, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I disagree with other aspects than his chart than that. I'm not proposing changing those. But Nolan used the term populist, and the current article uses the terms communist and fascist. It's already inconsistent, but I believe communitarian is more in line with the spirit of what he was trying to do. Though I will say, I'd prefer populist to fascist. Juan Ponderas 06:07, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That I largely agree with. I am a populist, and you can imagine I might not like to be called a fascist ;) The bit about comminitarianism is probably best lkeft out. Communitarians have some strange and unpopular ideas, and arn't a good example of that sort of politics. Same w fascism (which also has alot of stigma due to WWII), so I think Populist would be best. Sam [Spade] 13:53, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Admittedly, it would be nice to have a 3 syllable name to call myself, rather than five. Populist, though, has some drawbacks. It is commonly associated with leftists (at least in America). It has meanings, decribed here, that have no place on the Nolan Chart. It has some historical connotations dating from the 19th century that have little in common. If we decided to use this terminology throughout Wikipedia, we would have to add a section to the article on populism, which would lead to confusion. Communitarianism is also the name of a related philosophy, and I imagine that's what you mean by strange and unpopular ideas (I am not among that school of thought)... Juan Ponderas 15:06, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Populism is broad and vague, but tends towards the radical implementation of social justice. Sometimes that can be seen as "left", but populists are always firm believers in traditional values. Its not a simple label, and has lots of room to move around within. Thats why I am so happy to wear it myself :) Sam [Spade] 15:27, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Currently, populist is never used in that regards, though. It's commonly used meaning is distinct; this is something completely different. Schwartzenegger and Dean are both cited in the article on populism as populists, when they both lean towards liberalism/libertarianism. Populist would thereforth have little inherent meaning unless the context was specified. Being too broad would weaken it's usage; libertarian is distinct. It, like communitarian, is also the name of a philosophy, but unlike populism, that philosophy is known by a very select pool of people, who are not likely to be confused. I would prefer a clear term to call myself... If it's the length of the word that bugs you, I have a plan. Make up a name, start a website with said name, write tomes of political philosophy, and build up a community of adherents. Then we can put it in Wikipedia. ;-) Juan Ponderas 01:07, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hahaha... I'll stick w being a Radical centrist populist (my views). Communitarian's support gun control, which just so happens to be my hot button issue. Sam [Spade] 15:30, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm taking the discussion to the talk page on the Nolan Chart. You know, Sam, It's interesting how your views compare with mine, which are mostly similar (I'll have a page up sometime). I've wondered if some issues are both social and economic, thus do not work perfectly with the Nolan Chart...

This may be the wrong section, but I was looking at the discussion earlier on whether optimism is a grounds for alternative spectra. It would seem to me it is, but not liberal-conservative- it's libertarian/populist. Juan Ponderas 04:36, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

POV

In the list under "Multiplicity of interpretation of the left-right axis" User:Silverback changed "Support for the economic interests of the poor (left) or the rich (right)," to "Whether the government should support the economic security of the poor (left) or allow citizens freedom to spend their money for other purposes as well(right)." He re-reverted with the comment, "revert, it is a leftist POV that the right is motivation by favoring the rich rather than the principles of freedom, are you from Europe or something?". I think the latter part of this speaks for itself, apparently he thinks U.S.-centric right-wing view is simply "correct".

I believe that the original wording is a NPOV way of stating one of the ways these terms are used. I believe that his substituted text is nothing of the sort:

It is a way the term is used by the left, how many rightists, even in Europe where they "sometimes" but not always have an authoritarian bent, they don't claim they favor the rich. That is a leftist interpretation or conclusion, they would state other aims as their primary aims. Yes, the term is used the way you describe, by the left, when it is used by the right it has a different meaning. We can come up with one phrase that reflects what each side is meaning when they self identify, but that requires a true NPOV effort which I made, note that "support the economic security of the poor" is not a rheterical perjorative, like "interests of the rich". Otherwise we need two separate POV phrases to achive NPOV balance.--Silverback 01:59, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Leftist connection to the poor is not merely in the matter of welfare programs. It covers the entire range from equal access to justice, to minimum wage laws, to legalization of trade unions, to "one person one vote". The implication that it is simply a matter of subsidy programs is highly POV.
In the USA, the right supports equal access to justice, one person one vote, and the legalization of trade unions (under freedom of association, although they might quibble with their exemption from anti-trust law), etc. The minimum wage is a unfunded mandate, welfare is a attempt to use government coercive power to achive equal results. Governments which can achive that by whatever definition of results they use, are too powerful to have around. The greater good is served by keeping government severely limited, remember that government is an evil coercive power (perhaps necessary, however).
Historically, the U.S. right was dragged kicking and screaming into finally allowing some means for the indigent to get legal defense when charged with crimes. Now that it's there, many, probably most, on the right agree it's a good idea, but it was an initiative from the left. Similarly, one person one vote: I was around when this was being fought out in the 1960s in New York State, and there is no question which side the players came from. Again, something that is now sacrosanct in most U.S. contexts (except, of course, the U.S. Senate and the Electoral College, both enshrined in the Constitution on a basis that gives unequal representation, but that's neither here nor there). Similarly, over time the right has come to reluctantly accept unionism, but surely you can't deny that the union movement historically has been part of the left in most countries at most times: in many countries "workerism" is practically the definition of leftism. You may feel that minimum wages are "unfunded mandates" (do you feel the same way about the abolition of slavery?), etc., but there is no question where the left and right each line up on this and little question which classes tend to benefit. Welfare: again, whatever your personal opinion on welfare (in the broad sense) is there any question which side of it the left and the right are on and how those correlate to class interests? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:49, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the past shape the one person/one vote issue in New York, but I think I did not understand what you meant by that if you meant the electoral college, I thought you meant things like universal suffrage. The electoral college is an ugly compromise, part of the agreement that made the union acceptable to less populated states, but I would not want to get rid of it without getting rid of the union and/or going to proportional representation, getting rid of our winner take all system. If we get rid of the small state checks on populous states power, we need to improve the checks on the tyrrany of the majority, not relax them, perhaps expand the bill of rights and make sure we get strict constructionist courts, although that may require that judges be replaced by computers, they all seem to hold their fingers to the political currents. On the issue of unions, the issue became polarized when both sides resorted to violence, eventually with the threat of violence and with government assistance unions were able to extort agreements in excess of the market power. It was the consumers that suffered. Notice that unions representing females did not win similar pay concessions, not because of some kind of sexism, but because the threat of violence was less (to their credit). On the issue of equal access to justice, although I am appalled at the quality of public defenders, the special status granted to lawyers is part of the problem, I am an advocate of making the courts more open and transparent, and the law more accessible, so that people can represent themselves "pro se" without being at any kind of disadvantage.--Silverback 06:46, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"...freedom to spend their money for other purposes as well..." is particularly POV in its choice of wording.
REALLY, and favoring the poor isn't? The left favors big government coercion, I was allowing you balancing POV, you want to paint the right the leftist way.--Silverback 02:25, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Beyond that, the notion that one side or the other has more connection to "the principles of freedom" is nothing but rhetoric, and rather tacky rhetoric at that.
It is far more defensible than mere rhetoric, what the left wants, they have to use government guns to achieve, coercion is the antithesis of freedom. The right is in favor of "government gun control", limited government with checks and balances, because they know that someday, someone else will be in control of that government, and the potential to evil in government far outweighs the good that it can do. The left accumulates power in government, such as getting it involved in education and then whines when someone like Bush gets in control of that power, they never learn. They are extremely undemocratic and uncivil, they don't realize that in order for democracy and government to work it must be limited, power is too prone to abuse.--Silverback 02:25, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Coercion is no monopoly of the left or right: or are you one of those people who is going to try to tell me that Hitler was secretly a leftist? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:49, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Yes, he was by U.S.A. standards, look at his social programs and his centralization of power in the hands of the state. He definitely was not respector of checks and balances, he was more akin to Stalin than to Thomas Jefferson. I consider the European scale, meaningless and indefensible. Although the U.S.A. scale is not much better given a single scale. I think a dual scale for social and economic issues is much more usefully informative, for each axis, there would be totalitarianism on the left and anarchy are on the right.--Silverback 06:46, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I am not unilaterally reverting again at this time because I try very hard to avoid edit wars with anyone other than an outright vandal, but I would greatly appreciate if someone would endorse my view on this by reverting. Also, further dialogue is welcome. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:47, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

(In case you hadn't noticed, Jmabel, Silverback is rather opinionated when it comes to politics. I'd strongly encourage you to forego debating the issues on this page, no matter how tempting it may be. Coming to an agreement about an NPOV article is a small miracle; coming to an agreement about who's right in politics is just too much to ask. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 02:43, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC))

I'm confused, Quadell, are you suggesting that because he is strongly opinionated I should just let him do whatever he wants to articles? Or that I should "balance" him with deliberately POV edits of my own? Or what? -- Jmabel | Talk 05:49, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

You are proposing POV edits, if you propose to document every perjorative leftist use and characterization of "right wing" and call it NPOV, just because someone else perhaps famous used it that way, that would put the right at a disadvantage because the left is more condescending, mocking and perjorative. The terms we have are overloaded and useless.--Silverback 06:46, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

First off, Jmabel, I applaud your decision to discuss instead of revert. Too many people choose the latter. I've been tempted to get into revert-wars with Silverback myself, but it's never worth it. He's very stubborn, and he's right just often enough that you risk looking foolish. :)

Thanx, Quadell, despite our disagreements, I respect you as an honest broker. I have nothing personal against jmabel. I think jmabel is just not used to seeing the "right" defended and has made the perhaps understandable mistake of assuming that it can't be defended. I think the solution to reducing divisions and living with each other is to find the minimum coercion we can live with.--Silverback 02:45, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Don't be silly. If you've looked at my work over the last year or so, I've repeatedly fended off left POV warriors as much as right POV warriors. BTW, while I almost have to invite you over to another article, take a look at the edits I've made over time in left-right politics, an article I've been far more involved with than this one, or in conservatism, where you will easily see that I have plenty of respect for political positions on the right. Notice especially that in the issue of meaning of the terms (in left-right politics), I've made the majority of the effort to actually source any of this. It looks like what is here is mostly a digest of what I did there. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:49, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

In this case, I don't think either version is really NPOV. Conservative philosophy doesn't support the interests of the rich over the poor. (That is a common side effect, though, and there are certainly corporate interest groups that support conservative policies for that reason.) But Laissez-faire isn't promoted in order to help the rich; it's promoted in the name of freedom. I think that's what Silverback was getting at, but I don't his current version works either. (Liberals want to spend money on other things as well.)

I would recommend this:

Increasing (left) or decreasing (right) the government's role in providing for the poor.

or

In budgeting and financial priorities, tending to promote economic freedom (right) or economic security of the poor (left)

Do either of these work for both of you? – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 02:14, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

I am willing to work towards true NPOV. As demonstrated, I hope to eliminate complacent and hubristic assumptions.--Silverback 02:22, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I see Quadell's second phrase as more NPOV, because the right would not say it favored decreasing the government's role in providing for the poor, it would speak of economic freedom, lower taxes, smaller government, etc.--Silverback 02:36, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm certainly willing to work toward NPOV. In any event, we have to start from context: there is no one true meaning of "left" and "right". They are malleable, vague terms. What we should be doing is documenting how these words have been used, preferably by significant writers or significant political actors, not just some views people on the left and people on the right happen to have.

I certainly prefer Quadell's second wording here to either his first or to Silverback's, but I think it misses the point: while this may be a difference between typical left and right stances, it is not what anyone I've ever heard of considers to define "left" and "right". The point of the original wording -- and it lacked citation, and that is a problem, and should be addressed -- is that many important writers (mostly on the left) have considered this economic class issue to define left and right. Nonetheless, I have no problem with it as a compromise for now: at least it is evenly balanced, as a statement without attribution should be.

What would make me happiest, though, is if we could get this list (and the one at left-right politics) to consist entirely of cited definitions given by significant writers or significant political actors. And that will take legwork, and I've got a lot else I'm working on right now, but I will try to get to it some time. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:49, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Instead of talking about the meaning of the words left and right as defined by their opposites, the focus could be on more academically defensible words, such as democracy, freedom, coercion, taxes, rights, checks, balances, etc.--Silverback 06:46, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

But "left" and "right" are used in political discourse and, as an encyclopedia, we need to talk about how they are used.

In any case, since I suspect none of us are inclined to do the real legwork on this in the next day or so, can we just compromise on Quadell's second wording for now, which we both seem to consider evenhanded? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:41, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Sure, I'm fine with his second proposal. I don't see a compelling need to have how they are used explained in wikipedia, sounds like more of a task for a dictionary, when they are used as perjoratives to paint the other side as extreme, but they aren't used informatively or with much rigor. Any interesting detail, would have to do with the purer philosophies that are associated with those who self identify with the terms, they must have reasons for doing so. That is different from the name calling with has almost zero intellectual content.--Silverback 08:28, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Done. I had to flip the sequence of the phrases, because all the others give "left" first, and it would have been very confusing to make this one go in the other sequence. -- Jmabel | Talk 08:47, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Perhaps the left has first claim to the left side of the statement. :-) --Silverback 10:25, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"Westernized Political Spectrum"

The recently added section Westernized Political Spectrum strikes me as almost completely incoherent. Maybe I'm just tired, but I doubt it. I don't want to just delete this in case there is something coherent here. Could someone besides its author take a good look at it and respond here? -- Jmabel | Talk 07:35, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

It brings two important ideas to the table, but needs rewritten. The two important ideas are:

Non-Western countries have a different left-right paradigm (China is an especially good example)
Extremists have more in common w each other than they do w either the left or the right (i.e. extremists tend towards revolution, anarchy, and totalitarianism).

Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 11:59, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Do you want to try rewriting accordingly? And would you agree that the section header is wrong? -- Jmabel | Talk 19:12, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Ick, no. This doesn't deserve a whole section. It deserves a bullet under Alternative Spectra as the Reactionary - Radical axis. Now why he is calling it "westernized" needs explanation. Yes, different areas have a different left-right paradigm, which is why "Alternative Spectra" doesn't mention left or right. Harvestdancer 23:04, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

How about this?

Change versus Tradition: Radicals (who believe in rapid change) vs. Reactionaries (who believe in no change)

Harvestdancer 23:07, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Looks good, a discussion of positive / negative liberty would be good as well. Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 23:17, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would not say it is at all true that reactionaries "believe in no change". Very often they are trying to restore a real or imagined status quo ante, which requires a great deal of change. For example, the few remaining outright white supremacists in the US South are reactionaries who wish to make enormous changes. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:39, Jan 26, 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. The nature of reactionary politics -- including much of what is called "conservatism" today -- is to recreate an ideal that is believed to be represented in the past. For instance, the American "pro-family" movement seeks to recreate the ideal they see in post-WWII, pre-"sexual revolution" nuclear families. Whether this ideal ever existed is not in the argument.

The reactionary differs from the revolutionary chiefly in that the former claims to be looking backward and the latter forward. The former claims to be re-establishing old values which have been lost in the present day, while the latter claims to be overthrowing old values which have ill held on in the present day. The depth and collateral damage of the changes they propose do not differ. --FOo 01:54, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Actually, look into anarcho-primitivism, if you get far enough to one extreme, you tend to end up on the other side ;) Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 11:55, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

On that note, I want to mention that I don't see a sharp distinction between those who want a centralized economy run by the state, and those who advocate absolute laissez-faire capitalism, meaning businesses can grow and merge until they BECOME the state... DanielCristofani 06:43, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Conservative vrs. Liberal?

Hm, I'm not sure on "conservative" and "liberal". It seems to me that "radical" and "reactionary" might work better. Liberal and conservative require a disambugation as you are using traditional definitions instead of political definitions on a political page. That's not very ... useful. Also, this is the "Alternative spectra" section, not the "right left" section. Liberals and conservatives might find these designations to be POV. Harvestdancer 07:11, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, I did it the way I did in order to sidestep the problem of radicalism / revolutionism vs. reactionary. I don't see these groups as different, certainly not in their practices, and not really in their rhetoric either. For example, these groups tend to favor localism, Anti-Globalism, Anti-Zionism (indeed both the extreme left and right are often accused of being anti-semitic), and anti-statism in their rhetoric. Frankly I don't see substantial difference between the two, except in how they are viewed by outsiders, and hence who turns up at their meetings (altho both militias and green party meetings have alot of long hairs / mullets, and old beat up military clothing ;) Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 11:55, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

To label a reactionary as being opposed to change is incorrect. Reactionaries do make that claim but, they always follow that initial statement with such statements as "I just want to get us back to the days when the government was not involved in the economy, back before the New Deal of FDR;" "I just want to get us back to the true democracy as envisioned by our founding fathers;" "I just want to get us back to the days when men were men and women were women and you could tell the difference." Notice that the present situation is unacceptable to the reactionary and he wants to change it. And the change that the reactionary wants is, to go back in time. Advocating an effort, to take the society as it is presently consituted, and return it to a condition that existed in the past is to advocate enormous change. It can be as much change as the radical is professing in his effort to move a society in the direction of change off into the future for something that doesn't presently exist. So both the radical and the reactionary are unhappy with the condition that exists in a society and wants to change that condition immediately. Its just that they are going in opposite directions--one into the future, the other into the past. It is the conservative that prefers to maintain the status quo not the reactionary. One problem is that reactionaries don't call themselves reactionaries. They call themselves conservatives. Today, correctly labeled, the US is governed by reactionaries. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PaganBaby (talk • contribs) 11 Dec 2005.

To put it simply: the reactionary is a radical utopian, whose utopia is located in the past rather than the future. Both the radical and the reactionary are willing to sacrifice present goods and the rights and well-being of others in their quest for this utopia.

Since both are willing to deprive others for the sake of their utopia, the radical and the reactionary are both opposed to liberalism (in the philosophic sense of the word). Since both are willing to sacrifice present goods for their utopia, they are both opposed to conservatism (likewise construed). --FOo 03:59, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Revision of multiaxis section

Portrayed that way, the Political compass does look more like the Eysenck model. I think, though, it is just a clever illusison. Take a look at this model on their website. This version has the axes drawn in, economic and social. That is identical to the Nolan chart. Your version, and the one they use later on the site, use the resulting ideologies as axes in themselves, which is just another representation of the Nolan chart.

Furthermore, I think we need an actual image of the Eysenck model. The one beside it, described below as 'similar', is actually very different. They both have a left-right axis, but in the Eysenck model the second axis is between democracy and authoritarianism- essentially, the 'political liberty' axis of the Friesian chart. This is very, very different from the axis between government control and libertarianism portrayed in the current image. Juan Ponderas 22:52, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think we're arguing about the facts, just the interpretations of those facts. Yes, the PC chart is a different orientation of the Nolan, which is a different orientation of the Eysenck. At least on a two-dimensional axis, there are only so many ways you can chart political ideology. That different orientation in and of itself, in my opinion, makes it noticeably different. Last, I think that the results show that this different orientation is important. Taking the Nolan test, I land quite deeply in the left-wing [labeled "liberal" by the test I was directed to] quadrant. In the PC test, which has a left-wing half, I land in the Left-Libertarian side. Such a discrepancy in terms [I'm reminded of the "liberal-minded communist" quotation in the article], at least, should warrant the 1-2 paragraphs on the PC that I added, and the additional paragraph on the Nolan I added, which mentioned the left-right diagonal, et al.

I should say, however, that for the above, I'm going by the Wikipedia picture of the Eysenck. If it's inaccurate, which I suppose it may very well be, can you offer a more (or the) correct picture? But I don't think that Government vs. Individual Decision [current] is much different than democracy vs. authoritarianism [correct]. Bloodsorr0w 20:28, 10 May 2005

I wouldn't equate the PC's chart with their test; the latter is sometimes grossly inaccurate- how they can label me a libertarian is almost beyond my imagination.

That being said, there is a significant difference between the two axes. 'Democracy versus authoritarianism' concerns views on who should rule. 'Government vs. individual decision' refers to the amount of power exercised by that government. The two do not correspond, at least directly. Advocates of collective decisisons or government power can easily be democratic or authoritarian.

The Eysenck model simply adds the dimension of political liberty to the traditional left-right axis. Thus, it results in distinguishment, for example, between democratic leftists and authoritarian leftists. It does not distinguish between social issues and economic, and ideologies such as libertarianism that are niether liebral or conservative on both have no place on it.

On the Nolan Chart, government power is split into two axes, social and economic. This does allow libertarians and other philosophies to be placed. It doesn't address at all political liberty, and whether one believes government should be democratic or authoritarian.

File:Eysenck.png

I had never heard of the Eysenck model before this article. I made a quick chart of the model as described by the article (thus, it is not terribly aesthetically pleasing yet). I was unsure how to approach placing ideologies on, and left them out.

Juan Ponderas 03:04, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

That model mentioned in the Eysenck section, which is pictured- do we know the creator of the chart? Juan Ponderas

Vosem Question and Pournelle Question

I asked, before the archive, if the Vosem Chart should still be included here. Since the archive happened before anyone responded, I'll bring it upagain. Yes, it's one person's article on a webpage, but it is interesting. It certainly doesn't merit a separate Wikipedia article, and the separate article was deleted, but perhaps it does deserve one or two lines near the end of Multi-Axis Models and an external link.Harvestdancer 18:17, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I'd have no problem with that, but I can see a "slippery slope" argument... -- Jmabel | Talk 18:28, Jan 12, 2005 (UTC)

True, but slippery slope is a fallacy. I have long been annoyed w the removal of the Vosem chart, and its page, and would appreciate and support its mention here. Cheers, Sam_Spade (talk · contribs) 15:50, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I too agree it should be included. It's not as if there are obvious flaws in the chart's logic, and in my opinion it is more sensible than certain other charts mentioned. And it is interesting, to a degree. Juan Ponderas 03:51, 14 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, we are started down the same road that got Vosem deleted last time. Someone put brackets around it to make a page out of it, which if someone writes it will soon get deleted as the only reference is the article by the creator of the chart just like last time. I removed the brackets, making it plain test again. It deserves mention here, and we've linked to the article, but Vosem still doesn't warrant it's own article.Harvestdancer 22:47, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm curious: if the Vosem chart and most other models are not to have individual pages, why then does the Pournelle chart have its own? It doesn't seem remarkable in any way, and returns ~220 hits on google as opposed to Vosem's near thousand. Should it's contents be moved to this article? Juan Ponderas 23:45, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

You make a good point. You should nominate it for combining it into this page.Harvestdancer 22:01, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

I meant to hit "preview" to see what it would look like, and saved instead, combining most of the data from Pournelle_Chart into this article. I guess I just took the first step towards consolidating the pages.Harvestdancer 22:07, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Pournelle_Chart survived the Vote for Deletion. Yay! Even though I nominated it, I approve of keeping it. Now we might proceed with recreating the Vosem page. Harvestdancer 16:35, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

An uncited definition

Someone recently added text claiming that one of the definitions of the left/right contrast is "Whether it is best to subsidise the weak (left) or strong (right)." There is no citation for this, and it sounds propagandistic. If no one can provide a citation in the next 48 hours, I intend to delete it. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:28, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

It probably deserves to be removed for being uncited - but how exactly is it "propagandistic"? Do you think that POV is somehow less truthful than the others presented? matturn 10:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've removed it. As for why propagandistic: no one on the right would overtly say "we believe in subsidizing the strong". -- Jmabel | Talk 23:02, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps, although you don't hear the left overtly saying "we believe in subsidising the weak" too much either. The right does make similar statements though, helping "young achievers" and the like. And just because a group may not overtly support a statement, doesn't mean it isn't at the core of their beliefs. Plenty of socialist parties in the west during the Cold War would've liked their countries to become communist but couldn't dream of saying so, for instance. A modern example is the heavily Christian "Family First" party in Australia, which completely denies being theist at all.matturn 03:30, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Theory

1,790,000 Google hits for political+spectrum+theory; it is in fact a theory, not unlike evolution or creationism with its dissenters from primary premises & validity. Nobs01 21:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

This search demonstrates no such thing. All it demonstrates is that the words "political", "spectrum", and "theory" appear on the same web pages. Of the first 20 such pages, almost half are mirrors of Wikipedia pages; none of the remainder say anything to the effect of the political spectrum being a theory; the closest is one that purports to present a "theory-based political spectrum", basically a variant on the Nolan chart with a slightly different mapping of the terrain. -- Jmabel | Talk June 29, 2005 05:09 (UTC)

Nolan chart or Nolan Chart?

Wikipedia seems inconsistent in whether 'chart' and 'model' are to be capitalized or not. What would be more correct? Juan Ponderas

Writing Nolan Chart suggests that these specific two words are the name or title of the chart. Writing Nolan chart suggests simply "that chart made by some guy named Nolan". Nonetheless, the capitalized usage is still common for works where it isn't the title -- for instance, the real title of the official document on the JFK assassination is Report of the President's Commission on the Assassination of President Kennedy, but everyone calls it The Warren Report. --FOo 02:02, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Another spectrum - help me phrase it?

There's another dimension that should be mentioned under "Alternative spectra", but I can't think of the right words in which to describe it. This is the spectrum which deals with the source of state authority.

On the one end, there's the view which says that state authority is ultimately delegated from the people; thus, that government cannot have any rights that are not delegated to it, for instance by a constitution.

On the other end, there's what Popper called the organic concept of the state; that is, state authority as essential and original, as found in Plato's Republic and in Fascist politics. This is not quite the same as monarchy or the divine right of kings -- or, for that matter, the Chinese concept of the mandate of heaven -- although it similarly serves to legitimate the holding of power by whoever happens to hold power at the moment.

In political philosophy, this might simply be called liberalism vs. anti-liberalism, although that may be to take the Popperian point of view too much. (Not to mention the confusion that is the word "liberalism" today! -- and "classical liberalism" is too much bound up in libertarian economics.) Another expression for the first end is popular sovereignty; that is, the people as the source of authority; we could use organic sovereignty for the other end, but I'm not sure if that word has provenance.

Thoughts? --FOo 18:06, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Populism versus authoritarianism? That might be one too many usages of those words, however. Popular sovereignty sounds like a good term. Organic sovereignty... well, it's possible that no established term describes that concept. In that case, it might be better to coin that phrase rather than distort the meaning of a current word. Juan Ponderas

"Popular sovereignty" is certainly correct for one end. Popper is probably as good an authority as any for a name for the other end, and certainly citable. -- Jmabel | Talk June 29, 2005 05:16 (UTC)

A doctrine of enumerated powers vs a de facto regime, the way you describe it.Nobs01 29 June 2005 05:39 (UTC)

That sounds good. Something else to consider on the latter end of the spectrum is the Right Hegelian position, as set out in that article. Hegel's treatment of the state as an end in itself can be diametrically opposed to Locke's (or the U.S. Founders') view of governments as established among men to secure certain rights. --FOo 29 June 2005 15:37 (UTC)

The "doctrine of enumerated powers" can also be referred to as "limited self government" (brings up about the same number of google hits).Nobs01 29 June 2005 17:15 (UTC)

Classic European constitutional monarchies were not de facto, like modern constitutional regimes they were de jure.

I think several separate issues are getting mixed here: how absolute are the powers of government vs. what is its claim to sovereignty vs. de facto/de jure. Louis XIV's government was absolute, de jure (he inherited his position from a long-established regime), and claimed sovereignty through divine mandate. Stalin's government was effectively absolute, de facto (he made and ignored constitutions at will), and claimed sovereignty through popular sovereignty. FDR's government was constitutional (even if he strained at the limits), de jure, popular sovereignty. The UK at pretty much any time over the last century is constitutional, de jure, officially claims sovereignty through the a monarch "by the grace of God" but probably mostly doesn't believe it... etc. It's complicated, no? -- Jmabel | Talk June 30, 2005 06:11 (UTC)

Model used by Ideology article

The page on Ideology uses a two-dimensional model to describe political ideologies. This is interesting for a couple reasons; the model is not listed in this article, and that article uses that model as an expression of fact. See an opening statement: "Political ideologies have two dimensions:".

A) Should the article be mentioned here? It traces back, to my knowlege, tp a site called Moral Politics. B) How should that page be handled? Should the descriptions of ideologies with that model be moved to an article on that model, replacing the content in Ideology with a description of political ideologies that is not reliant on a particular model? -(Juan Ponderas

Of course it can easily be included, it's quite topical in this article, just not in full. Create a summary, and then include it in the "multi axis" section after Pournelle and before 3 axis. Harvestdancer 22:49, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

First, what is the situation with this article? Pournelle chart's separate article was kept, and it logically follows that other models, such as this one and the Vosem chart, be given their own articles. Perhaps the models could be listed here with links to articles and only a few sentences of description.

Of course, there might be opposition to that- I wasn't here, but I guess there was a Vosem chart article that got deleted? We need a single decision made; should the Pournelle chart article be deleted? Or should the other models listed here get their own articles? (Juan Ponderas

The Pournelle chart is notable enough in for an article of its own, if only because Pournelle himself is so well known. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:52, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Even though I support the Pournelle chart having it's own article, I put it up on Votes For Deletion. The official decision was to keep the Pournelle Chart. I based that decision on a "once upon a time" when the Vosem Chart had it's own article and the article was deleted AND the reference to it in this article was also deleted. Well, the vote said to keep the Pournelle chart. Now we need to decide what to do about other charts. Harvestdancer 18:06, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Pournelle himself has his own article. As these models go the Nolan Chart and the Political Compass seem like the only ones to be relatively well-known. By google searchs the Vosem chart seems to take third place, ahead of both the Eysenck and Pournelle charts. I think the other models should have a subsection in this article. (Juan Ponderas 00:31, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

The point of the Eysenck chart is that it is the first (known) two dimensional chart, even if it not that famous. I don't think that over here in Britain the Nolan Chart is particually well known. I just thought, does the horseshoe chart count as multi-dimensional? Slizor 15:38, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

Good point about the Nolan Chart. I don't think the horseshoe rendition counts; it still is a single axis model. (Juan Ponderas 16:19, July 23, 2005 (UTC)

With reference to my comments below, I would like to make two points. In reference to Esyenck chart, I would put it in the same place as the Pournelle chart - because the person is so well known (see Jmabel's comments.) And also, with regards to the horseshoe, isn't multi-dimensionality implied - even if other ideologies are ignored. Slizor 23:53, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Multi-dimensional? I guess, but the term used in this article is multi-axis. When it twists the left-right axis into a horseshoe shape the point is two make an observation about that axis, not to introduce a new one. That the creator is relatively well-known doesn't seem to contribute anything to the significance of the model, and I don't think his popularity has lent itself to those models being widely known. Juan Ponderas

Political Compass

Should the Political Compass, as possibly the most well-known graph of political views, have a seperate part for it? Also, why is the Nolan Chart given as inspiration for it? Unless this is noted by their site then I think it should be removed.

Slizor 15:57, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm..., it seems I was thrown off by the social and economic scales they present. They are using they "social scale" to indicate authoritarianism versus libertarianism, in the general aspect rather than the social. Compare this paragraph, which I've been planning on axing, right under the Eysenck model:

"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."

It has an image their showing the model used by Political Compass. So, I'd say we should create a subsection for the Political Compass, move some information from the paragragh I quoted from the Eysenck model to the new one, delete the extra picture shown in the Eysenck model subsection (it doesn't show the Eysenck model, it shows the Political Compass), and give the World's smallest political quiz as the new example for most popular quiz based on the Nolan chart. Juan Ponderas

Certainly agree on the World's Smallest quiz following on the Nolan Chart (considering they are both similarly biased.) I made a few minor changes - slight bit of bulking and changing a few words (public/private property issues to economic issues.)

Slizor 11:32, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

To be sure, the Nolan chart seems somewhat biased, especially given many modern renditions, but the last time I proposed a political spectrum I had half a dozen people accuse me of a liberal bias. Problem is, I am not a liberal. It's hard to avoid. Juan Ponderas

Is there any way to tell readers that the Worlds Smallest blah, blah, blah, is just a load of crap without being too POV.

Interesting Point

If you look at the Pournelle Chart article it says that his chart was created in 1962 - two years before the Esyenck model. This would make the Pournelle Chart the first two dimensional axis spectrum, however the Esyenck model is more similar to the generic model used by many people (which is very similar to the Political Compass.) How should this be resolved? The Esyenck model is not particually famous outside of the Psychology field and not particularly influential, but the Pournelle chart is very very strange - the traditional left-right lines are horizontal. Slizor 23:49, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Interpretations of the left-right axis

Preference for a larger and more interventionist government (right/left) versus a smaller government (left/right).

Given lack of citation, and the fact that people keep changing which side of this they consider to be "left" or "right", I am removing this from the article as probably useless. Citations (either way around) welcome, but till then I think we are better off without it. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:05, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

All of the items on the list are subject to double interpretation, if you wanted consistency they would all have to go. Economic interventionism is usually a left-wing theme, enforcement of traditional moral and cultural values by the state is a classic right-wing theme.Ruzmanci 21:21, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. Certainly moderately true in (say) the contemporary U.S.—although the Federal Reserve is hardly a leftist institution—but in at least the first half of the 19th-century in Europe, being laissez faire put you on the left. And the (moderate right) Gaullists in France certainly embraced economic interventionism, as do (hard right) fascists. I agree that in general, post 1880 or so, economic interventionism has usually been more on the left than the right, but that's neither here nor there: the issue is that it is a controversial statement either way, and therefore should have citation. -- Jmabel | Talk 04:55, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

laissez-fairerepublic.com material cut from article

I have cut the following from the article:

Up versus Down: a "Vertical" Linear Spectrum

File:VerticalSpectrum.jpg

Up versus Down -- a Simple Vertical Spectrum

Rejecting the notion that Communism and Naziism are opposites (since both are minor variants of hard-core socialism), and also the very ambiguous and perhaps totally illusory distinction often made between "social liberties" and "economic freedoms" as well, this spectrum seeks to measure merely the extent to which government and criminality impinge on the freedom of peaceful (non-criminal) adult citizens to own, use, and control their persons and properties by indicating relative points signifying different degrees of such coercive interference.

An Up versus Down "Peg" Spectrum

Because of confusions arising from propaganda and contradictory definitions, perhaps we should abandon the left-right spectrum and instead have a VERTICAL "spectrum" of UP and DOWN -- Up to the maximum of individual liberty consistent with law and order, or Down to the maximum of political interventionism (and minimum of freedom).

|10 The Laissez-Faire Republic (No Meddling with Peaceful Adult Citizens)

| | 9 Ayn Rand, George Reisman, & most libertarians

| | 8 Thomas Jefferson; JBS; U.S.A. prior to 1914 (no income tax, no Fed);

| | 7 Rush Limbaugh; National Review; American Spectator; YAF

| | 6 U.S. Republican Party (Average Position)

| | 5 U.S. Democrat Party (Average Position)

| | 4 European Welfare States

| | 3 Mussolini's Italy; Franco's Spain

| | 2 Nazi Germany under Hitler; Yugoslavia under Tito

| | 1 Red China under Mao; the former USSR; Castro's Cuba; N. Korea

| | 0 "Ingsoc" as described in Orwell's book 1984 (Total Control over the Citizens)]

Since individual liberty is generally inversely proportional to the Degree of Government Intervention in the private affairs and voluntary (market) relations of peaceful people, the highest level of freedom is at the top of the spectrum and the lowest level of freedom is at the bottom (where maximum government intervention is). Note that the vertical line comprising this spectrum measures one thing: the degree or extent of encroachment or intervention by the political state on the private affairs or voluntary relations of peaceful people, regardless of WHO or HOW MANY rule the official government (monarchy, oligarchy, democracy, etc). It is a one-dimensional scale which nmasures the overall SCOPE or extent of government intervention regardless of the FORM of government.

See Up Versus down "Peg" Spectrum or external link at http://Laissez-FaireRepublic.com/upvsdown.htm

Most of this comes from a site whose home page calls it Sam's Politically Incorrect Web Site Against the Neo-Fascist "Liberal" Establishment and Coercive Busybodyism -- and For the Laissez-Faire Republic. Need I really say more? Folks, this is an encyclopedia, not a place for posting the personal opinion of everyone who happens to have one. Maybe I should just stop there, but one more point: the claim that Tito's Yugoslavia was equal to Hitler's Germany and Castro more extreme than Hitler should all on its own be enough to discredit this entirely a anything but polemic. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:21, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

In addition, that model is not a multi-axis spectrum, and therefore was in the wrong section. The correct section, alternative spectra, already covers the model:

"One alternative spectrum that has been used by political scientists measures the degree of government intervention, and thus places totalitarianism at one extreme and anarchism (no government at all) at the other extreme."

Now, the article written on this model at Up Versus down "Peg" Spectrum needs to be taken care of. It's currently on suspension for copywrite infringement, but that will last until its reworded. Juan Ponderas

Uncited, unlikely, cut

I cut the following recent addition. It's uncited, and I don't believe it is accurate. Imaginably I could be wrong, but I won't believe it without citation. Yes, there is the so-called red-brown coalition politics in which the communists have sometimes allied with the right, but that doesn't make conservatives and fascists the left.

Oddly enough, in the former Soviet Union and nowadays Russia, the left-right classification is reversed when compared to Western European classification. Thus, communism and socialism would fall on the "right" of the political spectrum, while conservatism, fascism, etc. would be on the "left".

Jmabel | Talk 03:46, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

"Erickson NPOV political chart"

I reverted this edit. The material it inserted appears to be original research. If this is, indeed, citable from somewhere, please cite. -- Jmabel | Talk 07:33, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Prior to your edit, I was unaware of the no original research policy. The stated reason for the policy is absolutely understandable, to maintain trustworthy NPOV content in this encyclopedia. Very good. However, I think that in this case breaking the letter of the law fulfills the spirit of the law. The whole purpose of the new chart was to render the best political chart here to be NPOV! As you are aware, these political charts are almost always non-NPOV. Such is true with every chart shown in the article currently. I thought it reasonable and preferable to create a chart from a NEUTRAL POV. I invite you all to compare the two charts and see if it would not be reasonable to include the NPOV chart. The text I included in the "Other Models" section follows. Also, the Friesian chart and the NPOV chart are shown for your convenient comparison. -- Chris 16:24, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

"Another three axis model based on the Friesian Institute chart is the Erickson NPOV political chart (seen at the top of this article). It refrains from using loaded negative words like "Moralist" and "Authoritarian". In addition, it replaces the idea of freedom on the various axes which were characterized as unidirectional, and implying that certain legitimate categories of political thought (i.e. all categories except libertarianism) are defective and repressive. Such a unidirectional scheme assumes that freedom can only be personal freedom. Others counter that the community as a whole should have some freedom. Toward this end, the economic, societal, and governing axes on the Erickson chart are simply described as a spectrum of foci between general and particular on each axis."

P.S. My goal here is not to get my name in lights. If you all think appropriate, it could simply be called the "NPOV political chart". Also, my own motivation for doing this: my own ox was getting gored by the "moralist" and "authoritarian" non-NPOV language of the existing charts. I am pro-life and believe in universal health insurance. I'm not an "authoritarian" or as some charts say "fascist". -- CE

File:FriesianPoliticalSpectrum.PNG

The Friesian Institute's proposal

One immediate issue is that changing the terms used on a chart is generally not considered enough to warrant considering it a new chart. Those who changed "populist" to "authoritarian" on the Nolan Chart, for example, kept referring to it as the Nolan Chart. We actually had a discussion ages ago on the term to use on the Nolan Chart, coming to the conclusion that Nolan's original term would be best, with notes in the article on the terminology used. Of course, the Nolan Chart has its own article, whereas the Friesian chart doesn't; we've never reached a firm policy as to what the criteria for a separate article is. Perhaps a section could be made in this article for general commentary on the terms used. By the way, if you made that image, great job- it's very well done. Juan Ponderas

In any event, WP:NOR remains the rule. "Notability first, then inclusion in the encyclopedia"; not "inclusion in the encyclopedia as a means to noteriety." BTW, I think that your chart would be significantly improved by using the word anarchism instead of anarchy: the later is mainly a pejorative. Also, the succession "monarchy/republic/democracy" is dubious: the UK is a monarchy, but is almost certainly more democratic than Russia, which is a republic. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:16, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Those were some good points made. I offer this REVISED chart for your consideration. Instead of adding this chart to the ones already shown, it could replace the existing Friesian chart on the article page, given that it is a revision of said chart. It is a worthwhile revision. Perhaps a terminology discussion would be helpful, as per JP's recommendation. Also, per Jmabel's suggestions I changed the government names to -ISM's, because it does point to the philosophy and practice, rather than example. The UK is a republic; only nominally a monarchy. Russia is an oligarchy; only nominally a republic. In addition, I changed "general" to "community" and "particular" to "individual" because it seems less confusing. -- Chris 11:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

While I'm glad to help you in refining this, it is still original research, and hence a Wikipedia article is not the place to publish it. If you succeed in publishing it either in a peer-reviewed journal or in a prominent publication on politics (widely distributed magazine, book from major commercial or academic press, etc.), it will then be citable. Until then, as I said, "Notability first, then inclusion in the encyclopedia". -- Jmabel | Talk 20:26, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Not to belabor this, but the idea of it being just an "NPOV revision of Friesian chart" is a claim NOT to be original. But hey, whatever the stormtroopers want. Actually, the more I have thought about it, I think the change in content on the axes makes it a genuinely different diagram, because the categories are answering different questions: one measures the amount of individual liberty on all axes, the other measures the continuum between the ONE and the MANY (which I think is a better, less presumptive measure). BTW, what prominent publication can I find the Friesian Institute chart in? -- Chris 01:00, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the Pournelle chart, Political Compass, Vosem chart, and the Friesian model have never been featured in a prominent publication. In any case, I'll sketch out a proposed section on terminology:

Common terminology issues

The terminology used in these political spectrums can be controversial. One issue is the use of the term "liberty" in the Nolan Chart and derived models. Critics argue that their definition of liberty only takes into account government restrictions on rights, and does not include such positive rights as the right to a clean environment, equal opportunity, etc. Many on the political spectrum, especially leftists and populists, would argue that actions such as environmental protections actually increase liberty rather than decrease.

Another issue of contention is the asignment of terms such as "authoritarian" or "fascist" to ideologies falling in the quadrant of low economic and personal freedom. Many argue that this is an unfair comparison to more radical regimes in an attempt to portray libertarianism in a more positive light. Alternative proposals include "populist", the term Nolan originally used, and "communitarian".

In some case, multiple groups will compete for a common name. "Anarchism" is commonly used to describe anarcho-capitalism, but this is disputed by socialist anarchist movements.

Juan Ponderas

Chris, if you will re-read the above, you will see that I made several constructive suggestions on what to do to improve your chart, and what you would have to do to publish it in a way that would get the level of notability to be covered in Wikipedia. Unless I very much misread your remarks, you responded by calling me a "stormtrooper". If I have misconstrued you, or if you wish to retract the remark, say so. Otherwise, I will consider that a personal attack.

Juan: I can't say much about the pedigree of the Vosem chart or the Friesian model. Perhaps they do not belong in the article. FWIW, googling "Vosem chart" -wikipedia gives 535 hits, which suggests at least some notoriety; a quick read of some of what turns up shows a reasonable number of these links are people saying positive things about it. That's still pretty weak; I'm not sure I see why it is mentioned. Kelley Ross, the person behind the Friesian chart claims to be a philosophy professor; judging by his web site he is somewhere out in Randite/Austrian School territory. I have no idea whether he has published anything peer-reviewed on the topic. If we could come up with a three-dimensional model with more of an academic pedigree I'd be all for it; as it is, though, I think it is useful to give at least one example of a three-dimensional model and even if the model is a bit biased, I'd rather see us use an example of something that is already out there in the world than conjure our own original version.

The Pournelle chart was originally published in a Ph.D. dissertation, accepted at the University of Washington. That's would be a little shaky if Pournelle had no other notability, but, of course, he has. The Political Compass is, at the very least, well-known. Their web site has received an enormous amount of press.

I don't really know the academic literature on this subject. I'd be interested in hearing from someone who does. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Coverage in academic literature is limited by the fact that many people think political spectrums are a trivial amusement at best and a useless but dangerous propaganda tool at worst. Coverage anywhere seems limited by the complication of having three axes as opposed to two.

While we're in google land, did you know "vosem chart" without the "-wikipedia" gets 489 results??? In any case, a search of "'moral matrix' quiz" gets 1020 results, giving it more notoriety than most models here. This was the model that used to be used on Ideology. As for my own model, a comparison of the article titles yielded the following results: "'politics in a third dimension' -kuro5hin" with 48, 'remodeling the political spectrum' -kuro5hin" with 81. Mine was published two years after the Vosem chart and is not linked to by wikipedia, although I'll admit that many who would have mentioned the article title used "vosem chart" instead. Juan Ponderas

Sorry, Jmabel. I did implicate you in the "stormtrooper" assertion. I apologize. My frustration is with imposing the letter of the law without regard to the spirit of the law. In this case, the ban on original research is to help maintain a thoughtful NPOV perspective in the encyclopedia. That was my goal with the new chart. Also, it might be helpful to remember that real book encyclopedias are not unknown to create original diagrams. I doubt very seriously that I would be able to get a paper political journal to print a diagram. -- Chris 23:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

JP, I like your suggested paragraph on "common terminology issues". It's worthwhile. I think though that the phrase "the quadrant of low economic and personal freedom" buys into the libertarian schema. Perhaps you could say "the quadrant emphasizing community over individual". -- Chris 23:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I believe the intention of the "no original research" policy was to prevent inclusion on non-encyclopedic material on the basis of the NPOV policy. If that policy didn't exist, then any idea could be included on the grounds that opposing ideas are also included, which could lead to nightmare scenarios in which the encyclopedia becomes clogged with utter non-sense.

This being said, I usually side with the inclusionists, and especially in limited fields of study such as that of political spectrums. The amount of consideration that many models recieve is, while lesser in extent to ideas considered encyclopedic elsewhere, more significant in proportion to the notoriety of the topic as a whole. The insights offered by inclusion and discussion of alternative models would not be offset, I believe, by any feared dillution of the article's quality caused by a few added paragraphs and perhaps links to articles on individual models. I also believe the value of political spectrums is not proportional to the notoriety of their authors (Eynsenck, Pournelle) or necessarily to their popularity, and as such believe a consensus of Wikipedia editors on an article's conclusion would be a better indication of its worth to the article. The given reasons for the policy are as follows:

Why do we exclude original research?

1. It's an obligation of Wikipedia to its readers that the information they read here be reliable and reputable, and so we rely only on credible or reputable published sources. See Wikipedia:No original research#What counts as a reputable_publication? for a discussion on how to judge whether a source is reliable. 2. Credible sources provide readers with resources they may consult to pursue their own research. After all, there are people who turn to encyclopedias as a first step in research, not as a last step. 3. Relying on citable sources helps clarify what points of view are represented in an article, and thus helps us comply with our NPOV policy.

4. Relying on credible sources also may encourage new contributors. For example, if someone knows of an important source that the article has not drawn on, he or she may feel more confident in adding important material to the article.

Reliability, the first and fourth points, is a non-issue here, as these are theories and not factual claims. Inclusion of alternative models notable for their ideas would further the second goal, in my opinion. As for the third goal, sources availible for citation would be more than enough to clarify the opinions being represented.

Chris, I agree with you on the "low freedom" part being a sign of libertarian bias, but I didn't change it because I was talking about the models mentioned in the article. Perhaps I should put quotation marks around it to make that point clear? Juan Ponderas

"Real book encyclopedias are not unknown to create original diagrams": Yes, but "real book encyclopedias" get to hire and fire writers, and get to weed out the crackpots. Believe me, I'm often as frustrated as you by the NOR rule, but I'd rather take the inconvenience it creates for those of us who have a clue and operate in good faith than the abomination that would result if the requirement were lifted. It's bad enough that we seem to accumulate opinions that have been expressed by exactly one scholar and refuted by a dozen others. It would be sheer disaster if we had to give similar deference to opinions voiced by no one but one uncredentialed Wikipedian. -- Jmabel | Talk 05:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Handling different topics differently

Proposal for a Wikipedia political spectrum: One axis ranging from inclusionist to exclusionist, another from prescriptionist to descriptionist, and a third from adherence to Wiki-wide policies to choices made by local consensus of editors.

My last reservation is that, given the general treatment of the topic, it should not be held to the same standard as academic topics, namely publication in academic journals or the equivalent. I don't blame you for honoring Wikipedia policy, however, even if I believe said policy is overly rigid. Maybe this is something I could bring to the attention of Wikipedia policy editors; that more freedom should be allowed in such cases if a consensus of local editors feel that global standards don't apply well to a certain topic. It seems that at present some unworthy ideas are being included while others that should are excluded; the question, though, is how this could be fixed, and it may not have an answer. Juan Ponderas

Juan, I'd be genuinely interested in a discussion on the possibility of different standards of citation for different articles, although obviously this talk page is not the place. De facto we've done a little of this (the standards of acceptably citation for pop culture articles are certainly different than for political articles, and certainly we have allowed clearly uncontroversial material in articles without the usual expectations of citation). I'd suggest that if you are serious about this you might draft a proposal somewhere, maybe a few possible classes of articles that should be treated differently and what should be the criteria for these articles; then bring that proposal to the Village Pump. I'd love to see what you come up with. If nothing else, it's liable to improve everyone's clarity around the matter. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:23, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Thankyou for the insightful comments. Your idea sounds great; I'll draft up such a proposal as soon as I have time. When I'm done, could I get your thoughts on it before bringing it to the Village Pump? Juan Ponderas

Sure. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Stephane Dubois, and "Suggested Reading" section

The recently added Stephane Dubois chart doesn't impress me at all. Is there any indication that anyone other than Stephane Dubois has ever before cited or commented favorably on this thing? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:33, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

To follow up on that: is there any indication that anyone ever took note of the two books mentioned near the end of the article ("Maximum Liberty", Anonymous. 2003. (ISBN 0974443905) and "Beyond Liberal and Conservative: Reassessing the Political Spectrum", William S. Maddox and Stuart A. Lilie, Washington, D.C.: Cato Institute, 1984. (ISBN 0932790437))

They don't strike me as either as widely cited in academia or bestselling – statements like "The author proposes a new, universal model for the political spectrum and explains why the various existing models are inadequate" or "This book emphasises that the world needs a better model of the political spectrum" confirm the suspicion of soapboxing. Unless someone can explain where they were influential they ought to be removed. Pilatus 00:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)