Expanding the left and right: the political compass

[Rattrap]

I could've sworn I made a thread about this before, but a search didn't turn up anything. Just recently in another thread there was an argument about giving food to the homeless people - and whether banning/restricting that was right or left. I tried then to point out that it was neither, because that's on a different axis altogether. Welcome the political compass - this isn't a unique or singular idea, as there are a number of versions out there, though this one seems to be for the time being the most prominent, and at least for me the easiest to understand. There's your standard right and left - and then there's authoritarianism and libertarianism. As I argued with the homeless example, it's not right/left, but up - toward the authoritarian spectrum.

I won't say anything for/against the quiz portion of the website, but I do recommend taking a look at the election rundowns - there are some striking correllations to see in the leading parties in every country they have rundowns for, as well as showing how skewed the American perspective is regarding right and left (you'll notice that Obama - like every president we've had in my memory - is authoritarian-right. Which is where corporatism lies). I'm not sure if this website points it out itself, but you can certainly find some overlapping political compasses that plot some of the 'isms' - facism (authoritarian-right with corporatism), communism (authoritarian-left), socialism (authoritarian-center...see a pattern?).

I bring this all up to showcase that as much as we love fighting over parties like football teams, one can see quite plainly in these graphs that they're actually pretty much the same. Not just in the US, but also in Britain, Germany, Australia and so on. The reactions I've seen to the 2014 midterms remain baffling as people mention 'change' and 'now's the chance' - nevermind that the Republicans had all that chance and opportunity of change less than a decade ago, because in reality our government remains an R/D government. Slight shifts in the red and blue proportions leave it still an R/D government. We will not see change until it stops being an R/D government. Ad naseum.

This article from the Guardian does a neat job of illustrating some of this:
Why politicians must lie – and how selling ice-creams is like an election campaign

Few expect politicians to tell the truth and few are particularly surprised or affected when lies are exposed. Why is this the universal experience of politics in most developed democracies? It turns out the answer is related to ice-cream.
[...]
See where Barack Obama and Mitt Romney are? It’s just like the two ice-cream stalls on the beach. How about the Australian federal election in 2013?

The two major contenders, Labor and the Liberal/National coalition, sit almost as disturbingly close on the graph as the Democrat and Republican presidential candidates. The UK is barely different.

It's not even about voting for the lesser of two evils. They're the same damn evil. And as long as we keep voting for it, that's exactly what we're going to get.

 

[zeeblofowl_1969]

I could've sworn I made a thread about this before, but a search didn't turn up anything. Just recently in another thread there was an argument about giving food to the homeless people - and whether banning/restricting that was right or left. I tried then to point out that it was neither, because that's on a different axis altogether. Welcome the political compass - this isn't a unique or singular idea, as there are a number of versions out there, though this one seems to be for the time being the most prominent, and at least for me the easiest to understand. There's your standard right and left - and then there's authoritarianism and libertarianism. As I argued with the homeless example, it's not right/left, but up - toward the authoritarian spectrum.

I won't say anything for/against the quiz portion of the website, but I do recommend taking a look at the election rundowns - there are some striking correllations to see in the leading parties in every country they have rundowns for, as well as showing how skewed the American perspective is regarding right and left (you'll notice that Obama - like every president we've had in my memory - is authoritarian-right. Which is where corporatism lies). I'm not sure if this website points it out itself, but you can certainly find some overlapping political compasses that plot some of the 'isms' - facism (authoritarian-right with corporatism), communism (authoritarian-left), socialism (authoritarian-center...see a pattern?).

I bring this all up to showcase that as much as we love fighting over parties like football teams, one can see quite plainly in these graphs that they're actually pretty much the same. Not just in the US, but also in Britain, Germany, Australia and so on. The reactions I've seen to the 2014 midterms remain baffling as people mention 'change' and 'now's the chance' - nevermind that the Republicans had all that chance and opportunity of change less than a decade ago, because in reality our government remains an R/D government. Slight shifts in the red and blue proportions leave it still an R/D government. We will not see change until it stops being an R/D government. Ad naseum.

This article from the Guardian does a neat job of illustrating some of this:
Why politicians must lie – and how selling ice-creams is like an election campaign


It's not even about voting for the lesser of two evils. They're the same damn evil. And as long as we keep voting for it, that's exactly what we're going to get.

As to the lesser of two evils the problem I run into is the alternatives are always fringe idiots with such extreme ideas one way or the other they are not a true alternative.
As to banning giving the homeless food?? What kind of bizzare freakshows would let their own people starve in the streets?? Any group of people that would advocate not helping their fellow man are just weird and should be ostracized from society.
I'm sure it's been said here before but it's just odd to me that when they flash up the red and blue sectors on election maps that most population centers and/or educational centers for the most part vote Blue where as the lesser populated areas and/or for lack if a better word 'redneck' areas for the most part vote Red?? Is their any material to read to explain this trend??

 

[bobjustbob]

Cities vote blue. Only 5 of the top 50 populated cities voted red in the 2012 Presidential election. Of the next 50 most populated only 2 voted red. So it s not such a north/south thing as it is a rural/urban divide. Even in your most redneck states, Austin, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Atlanta, New Orleans, Birmingham, Tucson, Little Rock, and Charleston all voted blue. 71% of US citizens are urban and it's easy to say they should dictate what should go on but that leaves over 66 million people out of the decision making of their views and lifestyles. You can not ignore these people for what they need and want because some of the urban population also share their views.

 

[xfire]

As to the lesser of two evils the problem I run into is the alternatives are always fringe idiots with such extreme ideas one way or the other they are not a true alternative.
As to banning giving the homeless food?? What kind of bizzare freakshows would let their own people starve in the streets?? Any group of people that would advocate not helping their fellow man are just weird and should be ostracized from society.
I'm sure it's been said here before but it's just odd to me that when they flash up the red and blue sectors on election maps that most population centers and/or educational centers for the most part vote Blue where as the lesser populated areas and/or for lack if a better word 'redneck' areas for the most part vote Red?? Is their any material to read to explain this trend??

You have consistently touted the idea of breaking out of the red/blue dichotomy. I assume you trend toward moderation and away from money driven politics. I have a couple of questions, first, what do you identify as the most extreme positions of the two major parties and how do you propose to deal with their pet issues in a way that effectively neuters them as national issues? And two, how do you propose we get money out of elections? The "dark" money isn't going away, you can't make it go away and it will always be an issue at work behind the scenes working to further an agenda. I'm just curious what you see as workable solutions, instead of merely criticizing the current state of national politics.

 

[Jagger69]

It is indeed the same damned evil. As we "advance" into a more technological society the trend toward authoritarianism is inexorable in my view (when a oft-perceived "socialist" like Obama is on the authoritarian/right side of the compass for instance). Speaking specifically about the USA, this is evidenced by the erosion of personal liberties in recent years, both voluntary and involuntary, under the guise of "national security". Add to this the fact that the SCOTUS has basically given the green light to unlimited PAC and special interest money flowing into the coffers of those who pretend to represent the people and you have an economic engine to fuel the authoritarian trend virtually ad infinitum. As workers, the average citizens are compelled to shoulder the lion's share of the tax burden and, other than the present need for candidates to pander for votes every election cycle, there is nothing in place to safeguard the interests of the people post-election. As power concentrates around the small number of people who actually pull the strings of government, inherently "left" or "right" philosophies become academic and an authoritarian oligarchy....the dreaded military-industrial complex....begins to emerge. It's happened already and has been happening for many years....we just like to pretend it hasn't. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! Bread and circuses for everyone!

Kinda makes me relieved I only have 4 more years to live. j/k....I hope!

 

[zeeblofowl_1969]

You have consistently touted the idea of breaking out of the red/blue dichotomy. I assume you trend toward moderation and away from money driven politics. I have a couple of questions, first, what do you identify as the most extreme positions of the two major parties and how do you propose to deal with their pet issues in a way that effectively neuters them as national issues? And two, how do you propose we get money out of elections? The "dark" money isn't going away, you can't make it go away and it will always be an issue at work behind the scenes working to further an agenda. I'm just curious what you see as workable solutions, instead of merely criticizing the current state of national politics.

I really have no idea how to get money out of politics as of course almost everyone cannot get enough of it. Unfortunately strict regulations with real teeth in place for violators is the only real course but who the hell wants to fill more jails with politicians.
As to extreme I certainly don't want a welfare state as much as I don't want a religious state.
I will think in this more when I have time.

 

[Rattrap]

Cities vote blue. Only 5 of the top 50 populated cities voted red in the 2012 Presidential election. Of the next 50 most populated only 2 voted red. So it s not such a north/south thing as it is a rural/urban divide. Even in your most redneck states, Austin, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Atlanta, New Orleans, Birmingham, Tucson, Little Rock, and Charleston all voted blue.

And this makes sense on the surface; when you're living with a lot higher population density, it makes sense that you'd think more communally than when your nearest neighbor is half a mile away. This isn't to say this is even a leading factor, but as mentioned, has logic on the surface.

71% of US citizens are urban and it's easy to say they should dictate what should go on but that leaves over 66 million people out of the decision making of their views and lifestyles. You can not ignore these people for what they need and want because some of the urban population also share their views.

And fortunately they aren't ignored - in fact, they have disproportionate representation per capita. This could segue nicely into one of my beefs with the electoral college/swing states/arguments against 'cities controlling everything', but that's veering too far off topic for me.

It is indeed the same damned evil. As we "advance" into a more technological society the trend toward authoritarianism is inexorable in my view (when a oft-perceived "socialist" like Obama is on the authoritarian/right side of the compass for instance).

Do you mean to imply that technological advances are a contributer toward this authoritarianism?

Speaking specifically about the USA, this is evidenced by the erosion of personal liberties in recent years, both voluntary and involuntary, under the guise of "national security". Add to this the fact that the SCOTUS has basically given the green light to unlimited PAC and special interest money flowing into the coffers of those who pretend to represent the people and you have an economic engine to fuel the authoritarian trend virtually ad infinitum. As workers, the average citizens are compelled to shoulder the lion's share of the tax burden and, other than the present need for candidates to pander for votes every election cycle, there is nothing in place to safeguard the interests of the people post-election. As power concentrates around the small number of people who actually pull the strings of government, inherently "left" or "right" philosophies become academic and an authoritarian oligarchy....the dreaded military-industrial complex....begins to emerge. It's happened already and has been happening for many years....we just like to pretend it hasn't. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain! Bread and circuses for everyone!

The sad bit is that it's not as if we aren't without warning; one can find quotes aplenty from the Founding Fathers themselves about the perils of partisanship. Everybody's aware of what Eisenhower said about the military industrial complex.

Have we heeded any of it? Not even in the slightest.

I really have no idea how to get money out of politics as of course almost everyone cannot get enough of it.

In theory we live in a time when money could mean the least in politics (in reality this is of course the opposite, but bear with me), because individuals now have unprecented power to reach others in mass due to the internet. Reaching people no longer requires airtime or expensive billboards - and I suspect we'll see more of that when my generation and younger get their asses to the polls more instead of being one of the lowest turnout groups time after time. Twitter, Facebook, and others all have (the tremendous amount of dumb shit on them aside) great potential - as we've already seen used politically in other parts of the world.

...but then again, there's lol cat pictures to look at and I'm deeply invested in some celebrity's life that will never have anything to do with mine, not to mention this cute, derogatory name for a politician of the other team I found that I think is clever (while unbeknownst to me paints me as an obvious moron) that I want to splash all over the internet.

 

[bobjustbob]

You would think that there would be more community in more populated areas but that is not the case. If you have ever been to community board meetings you will notice something. The larger populated areas are gathering places for wannabe politicians. People (or should I say lawyers) networking for power. These people are of the regular crowd and get all of the attention of the boards. Individual citizens are brushed off with a thank you for attending. Rural meetings are well attended by the citizens and are very familiar with the people on those boards. More community involvement. More individuals speaking and being heard. More of a threat of getting voted out of office. Rural areas always have higher turnout for all elections.

It reminds me of the Walmart situation in Chicago a few years back. They wanted to build one and the city put so up many obstacles and red tape regulations that Walmart said fuck it. They built it just blocks from the city limits. That town got a new town hall and new police cars. All kinds of other money for senior citizens, youth activities, road, water, and sewerage improvements, you name it. Not only did Chicago lose out on the property taxes Walmart would have paid, they also lost the 1.25% city sales taxes run through the store. Big city/smarter people do not always make the best decisions.