Political Spectrum

From iGeek
WrongEnemy.png
There are many different political spectrums, and left and right means opposite things depending where in the world you are.
Left or right wing mean different and often opposing things in the U.S. versus the rest of the world, or depending on who you are talking to. So I want to know, on which spectrum are they talking about, or at least what do they mean by that. Especially when the terms can change to mean, "anything I don't like".
ℹ️ Info          
~ Aristotle Sabouni
Created: 2022-06-24 

The "Political" Spectrum (Left/Right) always brings up "on which political spectrum", and which country/culture? These terms do NOT mean the same thing across culture, time, or spectrums. So we need to define which ideology, on which spectrum, and what timeframe.

🗒️ Note:
One easy example I use is the U.K. versus the U.S.
  • In the U.S. Conservatisim generally means going back to when America had less central planning and authority, lower taxes, and more individual liberty. (More Libertarianism and less regulation). Traditionalism in American is more state/local control and isolationism.
  • In the U.K., they used to have a Monarchy or be part of the E.U. Thus, conservatism could mean going back to being ruled by a King (or by rule by Brussels/Germany). Traditionalism in the U.K. is being and Empire (pre WWII), or being part of someone else's (EU / post WWII -- but pre-Brexit).

Spectrum[edit | edit source]

Then Ideologies usually fit into a spectrum of contrasting beliefs: Political Spectrum • [7 items]


Left Center Right
Authoritarian - Which party (or side of the aisle) is more authoritarian or totalitarian? That depends on country, culture, time, and personality. But as overgeneralization:

Leftism exists to further the agenda of themselves or the collective, and force people to live "better", more socially just lives -- and that requires the carrot and the stick. Not freedom and persuation. You can't have a Fascist, Socialist, Communist or other leftist government succeed, if people can just opt out. So virtually all those leftist variants (and Islam) believe in and require force to achieve their agenda (social control), just their agenda changes slightly. Conservatism/Traditionalism and other right wing ideologies can be acheived by persuasion (or by force). So while the right in some countries CAN be authoritarian/totalitarian, the left MUST be.

So while the right is often referred to as authoritarian (by lefties), in practice, it is the left that is more authoritarian.		 Classical Liberalism - This is where you mostly want to leave people alone and pick your battles wisely (aka Libertarian).

This of course has a wide spectrum depending on how much they want to leave people alone, and what areas they are willing to make laws to punish people for not doing what they want. On one end is minicharists -- and on the other are those that don't want to make new laws encroaching on people, but they aren't ready to eliminate laws that are encroaching on them either.

Progressives/DNC are virtually always to the authoritarian left of Conservatives/RNC on this one. Progress is almost always about new restrictions on businesses and individuals). There are a few exceptions like immigration laws or abortion where it's fuzzy: but even there, the left wants to subsidies to pay for it, so they're still more authoritarian in practice.		 Anarchist - There are very few that are actually on this end of the spectrum. Anarchism is the reductio ad absurdum that the authoritarian progressives use to accuse anyone to the right of them (which is virtually everyone), "If you don't want my great idea, you must be an anarchist". But there is no such thing as Anarchy. It's a myth or an oxymoron. Put 3 kids on a playground, and in 5 minutes they'll have defined the rules for a game and how they want to play. Anarchy is unstable, and it quickly decays back to a stable state of a libertarian or minarchist kind of government (military, police and courts, individual and property rights). Since there is no true anarchy, and the right starts usually towards the center (to the left of minarchy) and moves left (with some social safety nets, regulations and laws beyond personal property/liberty). While the left starts on the far left, and moves lefter.
Collectivism - Socialism/Communism/Fascism (Leftism) is collectivism: the idea that you create a group (collective/insiders) and protect them from the market forces of an unjust world. The tyranny of the majority (or elite minority). There are those that agree with them (part of the collective) and outsiders that must be destroyed, re-educated or overridden. Us vs them (exclusion) is a prerequisite: the philosophy of "the collective", means the exclusions of those not in the clique. Leftists are NOT fighting for the betterment of humanity (despite what they think of themselves), just those in their mean-Girls club. Conform or die, with no introspection on what they are demanding conformity to. Conformism - Conformism is the middle ground followers that will go along with either the collectivists or individualists (or any other ideology). That's not really a moral position or one based on ideology or ethics. It's more Confucianists (or Japanese): don't make waves, just fit in. The nail that sticks up gets pounded down, and the Law of Jante. They are pawns or peasants, know they are pawns, and are content (enough) to never aspire to more for themselves or their culture. (Or to be too afraid of resistance). Individualism - On the opposite extreme of collectivism is individualism. As Ayn Rand said the smallest minority is the individual. The left claims to be for minorities, by crushing individual liberties and promoting the tyranny of the majority (assuming they're the majority). Look at places the left controls, and imagine you disagree with them and see how well you're tolerated.
Isolationist - (pacifist). Historically, the left has been more pacifist than the right. But the right has more isolationists: and isolationism was more traditional American foreign policy. But once in the fight, the right wants to fight to win, the left historically fights to lose. Moderate - There are cases where the left or right has been reluctant to get involved. But generally, they flip on who wants to be interventionist, and who wants to be isolationist. Usually, on the same war. (Like left was Gung Ho on Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan... but then wanted to leave before the job was done. Interventionist - (militarist) - The right was more against going in, but more for staying in, or fighting to win. The left has been willing to intervene, especially on Social Justice/Humanitarian means (but not against Communism/Leftism), and with anything Europe or U.N. wants. The right is more about U.S. interests, or defending pro-Liberty (anti-Communist/leftism) or for individualism.
Progressives - This is also "Post-modernist/ism" -- basically, you can't remake into utopia ("Forward", "Build Back Better", "New World Order", "Great Reset"), unless you tear down all the established institutions/mores/beliefs. The old must be bad, for the new to be good. They are addicted to change (progress), so that's addicted to seeing flaws in everything before they "Fixed it". Moderate - These are rational folks who understand both the need for change and some progress, but are wise enough to understand that there's a speed limit on change. Even the best ideas adopted too quickly, will hurt people and cause backlash. Moderates (or modernists) want some change, but don't want to break the speed limits that set the movements backwards. Because they'll never pass the progressive litmus tests for being progressive enough, they are mocked by the far left along with the traditionalists. There are a few conservative Democrats here, many more moderate Republicans. Traditionalists - Some measure left/right versus "Forward/Backward" direction of progress. Leftist is hope and change, versus rightism is a return to our roots (Making America Great Again). But even most traditionalists don't want to go back, most just want to slow the rate of going forward. Ask the most ardent conservative in America if they want to bring back segregation or slavery and they'll look at you like you're a CNN watcher: of course not. They just understand that most change comes with unintended consequences that can make things worse, especially when that change is unvetted emotional appeals by the far left. So true traditionalists are rare, most "Conservatives" are moderate modernists.
Secular - In statism (Communism/Socialism/leftist) the first commandment is no other God's before me, so you can't have any religion above state-worship: God/Religion along with traditions, objective norms, traditions, will all get in the way of the state and their shifting post-modernist non-values. Thus the left tends to be more secular, and intolerant and mocking towards the religious. There are exceptions like in the Middle East, Islamic theocratic socialism is more common (they are Islamic and Socialist). Because Socialism/leftist is part of their beliefs, and supporting Islam dilutes American/Judeo-Christian values, which is likely why the left prefers those homophobic, sexist bigots to more tolerant American Religious Republicans. Agnostic - Whether agnostic, apathetic or just tolerant, the moderate middle is people that don't want to intrude on others religion. The left will claim they are in this camp, but then demonstrate the opposite with policies like wanting to outlaw prayer or mentions of God, force people to pay for other people's abortions, or make them bake gay wedding cakes against their religious beliefs. . Religious - religious nations are considered more right wing because of the traditionalism (or resistance to progressive overreach). Though they really aren't (always). For example, Islam has Socialism kind of baked in. Iran is a religious theocracy (wrapped in a fraud democracy), and it's not that right-wing at all. (They are statist/collectivist, just the state and Islam blur). Israel as well, can be right-wing on defense but very left on helping Jews. (Both are tribally charitable). So in the U.S. there is a religious right, but it's mostly because coastal progressives demean and drive out their religious left. But before post-modern Marxism (1960's) started driving out the religious from the left, this used to not be a right/left thing.
Social Justice Warriors - The left believes that instead of Justice (equality of opportunity), we need "Social Justice" (government force, in inequity) to make the world more "fair" and to make up for past inequalities. Handicap the smart, fleet, or rich, to try to force equality of outcome. Thus they wrongly see those that disagree as advocates for injustice/inequality. They miss that replacing an economic meritocracy, with a political or victimhood based one, didn't fix anything, it just changed who the winners/losers were. Realist - The right believes that humans are generally good and don't need force as their only motivator (persuasion works). They also believe that in order to teach people, they need to be able to make the wrong choices (and learn from mistakes, and pay the consequences). So they want equality of opportunity and teaching the culture, and local governance to allow geographic/cultural diversity instead of criminalizing/taxing/regulating everything from the top. This puts them to the right of the left wing, but they're still far from the right of the SJW<->Hedonist spectrum. . . Hedonist - The left thinks the right is hedonist, anything goes in imaginary capitalism. But that's reductio ad absurdum: the right just believe in slightly less Government than the left does (and slightly more local). Then the right gives more in taxes and charity than the left does. There are virtually no true hedonists because most humans value helping others. Studies have shown there's no evidence that the left is any less selfish or hedonistic than the right, and the left in America is incarcerated at a far higher rate (which the left blames on racism or poverty instead of morals/values).
Tribalist - These are the bigots that can't work outside their clan. Black or White separatists, immigrants that never leave their expat communities, Democrats that lose their shit when they see a MAGA hat, even Union folks that hate management or those who don't work for organized labor. Folks that divide us into smaller and smaller special interests, and hate/resent everyone that aren't like them: that's tribalism. If we hadn't of grown beyond that, we could have never made Nation-states. Nationalist - The left spits "Nationalism" like it's a bad thing. There's Tribalism, Nationalism, and Internationalism (globalism). I find nationalism the least offensive and most tolerant of the three: the former has no tolerance for people outside their tribe/clique, the latter has no room for people outside their ideology. Nationalist look for unity in geography and ideology (national identity and culture). And in America, that identity is inclusiveness and diversity and used to be leaving each other alone, and the American dream (self reliance and success). The left is trying to drive it towards identity, victimhood, and special interests -- and that's where much of the Social/Cultural friction is coming from. . Globalist - There aren't many real globalists. Not really. There are some that hate their nations so much they want to undermine them, or they want Socialism so bad, that they want to dilute their nation's independence and identity, by enslaving their people to some "World Socialist Collective", in that the New World Order will force what they want on their nation. But point out that if they make more than $50K a year, then they are the 1% they hate (Globally), and that we should tax them at 90% and redistribute their wealth to other countries... and when it's someone redistributing their shit? (instead of them redistributing someone else's). Suddenly they want sovereignty and protection. But if you really think about what it would mean to eliminate all diversity, culture, and specialization, and make us all one world culture, and it's somewhat vile and depressing. I love diversity, and globalists would eliminate that.

Ideologies[edit | edit source]

There are beliefs or ideologies"

  • Agnostic - I used to call myself an Atheist, because I don't believe in an anthropomorphic (humanized) "God". But most of the public atheists were douche's that I was embarrassed to be associated with. Plus there's always doubt: we don't know what's out there beyond our comprehension, so being too definitive is being close minded.
  • Anarchist - There is no such thing as Anarchy. It's a myth or an oxymoron. Put 3 kids on a playground, and in 5 minutes they'll have defined the rules for a game and how they want to play. Anarchy is unstable, and it quickly decays back to a stable state of a libertarian or minarchist kind of government (military, police and courts, individual and property rights).
  • Authoritarian - Which party (or side of the aisle) is more authoritarian or totalitarian? That depends on country, culture, time, and personality. Historically, while the right in some countries CAN be authoritarian/totalitarian, the left MUST be. And in America? It's by far been the left or at least progressives (and all them pooled to the left now).
  • Classical Liberalism - Which party (or side of the aisle) is more authoritarian or totalitarian? That depends on country, culture, time, and personality. Historically, while the right in some countries CAN be authoritarian/totalitarian, the left MUST be. And in America? It's by far been the left or at least progressives (and all them pooled to the left now).
  • Collectivism - Collectivism is the idea that the many are smarter and deserve more power over the few. Tyranny of the majority, in theory. In practice, it's really tyranny of the elites or those that agree with the collective. They don't care if they're the majority or not, because theirs is the only opinion that counts.
  • Conformism - Conformism is the followers of whatever. Collectivists, Individualist, or any other spectrum. They either don't care who rules, or have this fatalistic attitude that "you don't fight city hall" or the powers that be. They are pawns, know they are pawns, and are content (enough) to never aspire to more for themselves or their culture.
  • Globalist - Globalism is the idea that there should be no diversity, only the homogeny of one world government and leftist ideology (Global Socialism with a large dash of autocratic elitism). The irony is that while many on the left think they want this, when you start questioning them about how they would like their wealth redistributed, and suddenly they start reconsidering.
  • Hedonist - To the left, there's authoritarianism or hedonism (no middle ground). Thus anyone not for everything they are, wants anarchy and debauchery. They're like religious zealots, if progressivism was a religion. There are virtually no true hedonists because most humans value helping others -- and the right often does so more than the left, disproving the lefts delusions.
  • Individualism - As Ayn Rand said the smallest minority is the individual. The left claims to be for minorities, by crushing individual liberties and promoting the tyranny of the majority (assuming they're the majority). Look at places the left controls, and imagine you disagree with them and see how well you're tolerated.
  • Interventionist - Both sides can rationalize their militarism. (Why we need to play world cop). But if one administration is for it, the other side is usually more cautious/reluctant. Historically, the left gets us into more wars -- but then fights to lose them. (They think you can be nice in a war, or micromanage it). Though Bushes and the neocons are exceptions.
  • Isolationist - Isolationism/Pacifism is internationally is wanting to mind your own business, or not wanting to fight. Those aren't quite the same things. The left will fight, but doesn't want to pay the costs and wants to get out quicker. The right is sometimes more reluctant, but if in the fight, will fight to win. (The left won't commit enough to win, and fights to lose).
  • Nationalism - The left spits "Nationalism" like it's a bad thing. There's Tribalism, Nationalism, and Internationalism (globalism). I find nationalism the least offensive and most tolerant of the three: the former has no tolerance for people outside their tribe/clique, the latter has no room for people outside their ideology.
  • Realist - Political realists trust people to not need authoritarianism and to grow from mistakes (if held accountable). This is the opposed to Social Justice, where everyone is victims or needs rules to do the right thing (but no consequences if they do the wrong, since nothing is their fault).
  • Religious - Religious nations are thought of as traditionalist. But some traditions are left leaning, just not as much as progressives want. So on an absolute right-left, they can be quite left. But on the subjective, never left enough for progressives/socialists? The politically religious can be obstructions to their agenda. Which is why the left hates/mocks them.
  • Secular - Statism/leftism doesn't tolerate threats to their authority/agenda, and Religion is a threat, so is often driven out. Religion offers resistance to changing traditions, challenging norms, or re-inventing mores to fit the agenda of the day. The exception is that Islam is leftist (redistributive, authoritarian, social justice), but traditionalist.
  • Social Justice Warriors - The left believes we need government oppression to protect us from being the freest, wealthiest, and least discriminatory countries in the world. Since they are not able to refute the arguments against this, they try to bully others into silence. That's what an Social Justice Warriors are: people willing to oppress opposing views in the name of diversity.
  • Traditionalists - Traditionalists don't really want to go "back", they usually just want to slow the rate of forward. So they don't want segregation or slavery... but they do want less government, or the lefts latest cause du jour or social program. Change has consequences. And while the left refuses to remember that, the right tends to not want to repeat past mistakes.
  • Tribalist - Bigots that can't work outside their clan. They might belong to different tribes, but "Us vs. Them" drives them. It's like being racist, but about every group they belong to. My belief is that while a little tribalism is fine, that tribalism and tolerance for corruption is what has prevented most of the 3rd world from becoming the 1st world.


GeekPirate.small.png


🔗 More

Republican National Committee
RNC or GOP (Grand Old Party) is the party that was founded on ending Democrats slavery.

Politics
Power relations between individuals or groups, such as the distribution of resources or status.

Democratic National Committee
Historically on the wrong side of almost every issue, while lectured the public on their moral superiority.

Fascism
Fascism came from Socialism, called themselves socialists, and acted like Socialists. Some pretend they are "right wing".


🔗 Links

Tags: RNC  Politics  DNC  Fascism

Retrieved from "https://igeek.mywikis.wiki/w/index.php?title=Political_Spectrum&oldid=30388"
Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.
More information
Powered by MediaWiki
Powered by Semantic MediaWiki