Thinking Outside The Box: Why a Political "Spectrum" is Misleading

Arising out of a visitor message discussion with Great White North:

I see flaws in throwing views under terms such as "conservatism" and "liberalism" or "left and right", and indeed my problem with politics as a whole is that it's perceived by many as being bipartisan - either one or the other. Politics isn't really a spectrum by virtue of the number of issues that come under its umbrella. Abortion, militarism, crime and punishment, social security and welfare, taxation, secularisation, privacy, liberty, health, all of these issues one can have different views on and can't really be pidgeonholed into an "either-or" stance.

In a way, the terms "conservatism" and "liberalism" needs to be thrown out - to conserve is to attempt to maintain the status quo. Increasing military spending and allowing for R&D on bigger weapons is hardly conservatism - it's progressive in a way that so-called "liberals" would be opposed to. Wishing to increase taxation is hardly liberalism - how can the forced payment of a sum of money dependent on your income be a "liberal" approach to the economy?

Many would make the fallacy of calling me a liberal because of my preference for rehabilitation over retribution, because of my support of the concept of taxation (if not its implementation), and because of things like being pro-choice, pro-welfare, and pro-secularisation. Yet I believe in states governed by the Rule of Law having a strong military and in interventionism where there is a clear and dangerous injustice being perpetrated, I believe in being tough on crime in some circumstances (such as contempt of court or perjury, or in those cases where there is clear evidence of an absolute disregard for the safety of others and the law), I believe in British constitutionalism over a written Constitution unlike many modern states, I support certain perceived intrusive measures of security, and I support the Rule of Law itself over executive discretion.

To fly a "conservative" flag when some of your views don't come under it is illogical. To take certain views because of that flag being attached to you is equally illogical. That is why I advocate freeing politics from the tyranny of a "spectrum" - it leads to complications because of everyone's obsession with flying flags. It results in someone like myself, when expressing a particular view, getting bundled in with a group of "liberals" just because I have a few views in common, or bundled in with a group of conservatives because of another view I have in common. A view, itself, gets painted a particular colour even when it has nothing to do with that political ideology.

TL;DR If you try to simplify your views by reference to a party or a particular side of the political spectrum you are actually contributing to the problem by making political discourse more about poop-slinging and evil-by-association than intellectual debate.

Discuss.

In terms of theory, I have to say that I entirely agree with you. Using such labels is misleading, and further, polarizing. "Red Team" and "Blue Team" and sometimes other "Teams" as well.

However, I think it has to be pointed out in terms of practicality, that using such labels is actually very useful. While perhaps not accurate in terms of pure grammatical definition, it has to be recognized that there are usually two or three sides to any issue.

This is important because when you string issues together, you tend to find that certain opinions on issues go together. Someone who supports traditional family values is more likely to support the ideal of a proud military. Umbrella terms serve to be just that, an umbrella or a "tent" as we say in Canadian politics that serves as a point to rally people that share similar beliefs.

I could start a "Pro-Military and Pro-Life and Pro-Family and Anti-Affirmative Action and ... Party", or I could start a party and use a single word to describe these beliefs that form almost a system of beliefs. Interconnected values and tolerable compromises that allow a subset of the populace a unified voice. "Conservative" and "Liberal" are simply the word or label that we use.

---------- Post added at 05:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:52 PM ----------

PS: YOU PROUD TONY?

Originally Posted by Great White North

In terms of theory, I have to say that I entirely agree with you. Using such labels is misleading, and further, polarizing. "Red Team" and "Blue Team" and sometimes other "Teams" as well.

However, I think it has to be pointed out in terms of practicality, that using such labels is actually very useful. While perhaps not accurate in terms of pure grammatical definition, it has to be recognized that there are usually two or three sides to any issue.

This is important because when you string issues together, you tend to find that certain opinions on issues go together. Someone who supports traditional family values is more likely to support the ideal of a proud military. Umbrella terms serve to be just that, an umbrella or a "tent" as we say in Canadian politics that serves as a point to rally people that share similar beliefs.

I could start a "Pro-Military and Pro-Life and Pro-Family and Anti-Affirmative Action and ... Party", or I could start a party and use a single word to describe these beliefs that form almost a system of beliefs. Interconnected values and tolerable compromises that allow a subset of the populace a unified voice. "Conservative" and "Liberal" are simply the word or label that we use.

The problem with those labels however is that they have very little to do with the reasoning, and this is why I suggest doing away with them altogether. Taking Pro-Life as a view in and of itself for example, there are any number of reasons you could hold this view. There are liberal pro-lifers who just value the sanctity of life in all its forms. There are extremely conservative pro-lifers who still support the death penalty just because that's the way it's always been. There are religious pro-lifers who believe that foetuses have souls. There are pro-lifers who just treat the refusal of an abortion as a form of penalty to teach people not to sleep around. On the other side of the fence, there are pro-choicers. Pro-choicers who simply believe that you can't have human rights until the brain begins to develop. Pro-choicers who believe that the rights of the mother-carrier take precedence to those of the undeveloped-carry-ee foetus when this conflict of right arises. Pro-choicers who are just part of the Voluntary Human Extinction movement and think that killing off people before they're born contributes to the eventual death of the human race. Pro-choicer libertarians who just don't believe in state prohibition of such activity as abortion.

(Disclaimer: This is NOT a discussion about the merits of the above views)

I have named eight different views stemming from eight different origins, yet in actuality there are but two - pro-choice or pro-life. If I declare that I am pro-choice, people may think me an atheist babykiller, they may think me a nihilstic voluntary human extinctionist, they may think me a member of the glorious scientific intellectual master-race, or they may just think I'm neutral and believe in the right of the party that can choose over the party that can't.

This is precisely why it isn't useful - because any association that comes from a declaration of my views paints an inaccurate picture of what my mindset actually is, and people will argue from that standpoint. It doesn't help anyone, it just facilitates the making of assumptions. And as the saying goes, when you assume...

PS: YOU PROUD TONY?

YES I PROUD. Not sure of what but I PROUD.

Not only that, there is also a debate between monarchism and republicanism. In the thread I created, I found that there are two self-identified conservatives that disagree with each other over the House of Windsor!

This is why the political spectrum should be multi-dimensional like this:

The image is taken from Jennifer Government: NationStates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even better, it should have more dimensions than the one shown, since it does not accurately differentiate between the different government systems (e.g. monarchism vs. republicanism) or legal systems (common law vs. civil law).

Originally Posted by Nen desharu

Not only that, there is also a debate between monarchism and republicanism. In the thread I created, I found that there are two self-identified conservatives that disagree with each other over the House of Windsor!

This is why the political spectrum should be multi-dimensional like this:

The image is taken from Jennifer Government: NationStates - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even better, it should have more dimensions than the one shown, since it does not accurately differentiate between the different government systems (e.g. monarchism vs. republicanism) or legal systems (common law vs. civil law).

That latter paragraph is, I suppose, further evidence why a "spectrum" approach doesn't exist - whether two dimensional, three dimensional, or hyperdimensional. Issues are separate topics - they cannot be lumped together with other views. That's what I'm arguing - that there is, in reality, no such thing as a political spectrum.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

That latter paragraph is, I suppose, further evidence why a "spectrum" approach doesn't exist - whether two dimensional, three dimensional, or hyperdimensional. Issues are separate topics - they cannot be lumped together with other views. That's what I'm arguing - that there is, in reality, no such thing as a political spectrum.

I have been saying that there are many attempts to add multiple dimensions to a political spectrum, ending up becoming so cumbersome that it ends up having as many dimensions as there are differences in ideas. Therefore, the political spectrum does not make sense to me. I had been joking about the part about adding dimensions to the political spectrum to highlight its absurdity.

Originally Posted by Nen desharu

I have been saying that there are many attempts to add multiple dimensions to a political spectrum, ending up becoming so cumbersome that it ends up having as many dimensions as there are differences in ideas. Therefore, the political spectrum does not make sense to me. I had been joking about the part about adding dimensions to the political spectrum to highlight its absurdity.

4D Temporal Politics - "I believe that time should be changed for the benefit of humanity" versus "I believe we should establish a time police force."

For awhile I've always felt that defining political views by one or two words and that the political spectrum is kind of dumb. This picture helped solidify my view:

(Not trying to turn this into a socialism vs capitalist thread, or whatever, but this made me think about liberals who support capitalism).

I could never understand how one could simply say they are a conservative, or that they are a liberal, or libertarian, or whatever. To me there are just so many factors both socially, philosophically, and economically that these labels don't really make sense to me. They're just so broad, and more often than not you'll find a liberal who is pro-life, or a conservative who supports gay marriage. What's the point if you're going to identify with an ideology but have multiple exceptions for yourself?



The USA is such a great example of pro-life vs pro-choice, conservatism vs liberalism, republicans vs democrafts, etc. People and the media in particular make it out to be that every situation is black and white and that the only people to exist on each side are radicals. I myself am pro-choice but I don't advocate having wild sexual escapades and getting an abortion every four months. That is deplorable.

Gay marriage for me, while I'm ultimately for it, still isn't just a "yeah, lets love each other! Yeah!" For me the issue is a legal one: consenting adults being denied benefits based off of their sexual orientation. It's discrimination. I don't have some personal vendetta against Christianity like people leaning right might try to say I have.

I don't identify with a political party nor any ideology. If anything I would call myself a Cynic. Identifying with parties ultimately leads to picking up fecal matter and smearing it all over your opponent. Mankind isn't going to make a lot of progress so long as we establish two sides of an issue and refuse to reach an acceptable compromise.

Originally Posted by Gamzee

I don't advocate having wild sexual escapades

what. I advocate wild sexual escapades one hundred percent.

Originally Posted by Nyarlko

what. I advocate wild sexual escapades one hundred percent.

I don't advocate for them personally but neither is it my business to restrict what other people do with their lives in this particular regard.

I meant that in the context of having wild sex and getting pregnant and getting an abortion and repeating the cycle every couple months.

Originally Posted by Great White North

I don't advocate for them personally but neither is it my business to restrict what other people do with their lives in this particular regard.

Originally Posted by Gamzee

I meant that in the context of having wild sex and getting pregnant and getting an abortion and repeating the cycle every couple months.

you guys, takin' things so seriously

so Gamzee you said you considered yourself a Cynic. Does that mean you eschew personal possessions and live only on the bare minimums? If so, I have to wonder about your usage of the Internet on what must presumably be some kind of computer.

as for the political spectrum thing, I've never really bothered with politics and don't label myself as anything. I'm just a person that believes in freedom, peace, and happiness. Call that whatever you will.

Well Diogenes lived before the internet so that doesn't count.

Pretty sure he'd be coo with it if he was born in 1987.

Originally Posted by Lord Zero

TL;DR If you try to simplify your views by reference to a party or a particular side of the political spectrum you are actually contributing to the problem by making political discourse more about poop-slinging and evil-by-association than intellectual debate.

This is precisely why it isn't useful - because any association that comes from a declaration of my views paints an inaccurate picture of what my mindset actually is, and people will argue from that standpoint. It doesn't help anyone, it just facilitates the making of assumptions. And as the saying goes, when you assume...

^This, if I'm not mistaken, is the crux of the problem you've stated.

If so, then it's a problem related to the people making assumptions and not to the people giving themselves a title. If people don't want to take the time to listen to me elaborate on my position, instead associating me with whatever evils have been committed by people who share my opinion, then that's not my problem.

To fly a "conservative" flag when some of your views don't come under it is illogical. To take certain views because of that flag being attached to you is equally illogical.

^I believe this was the other problem you had with political spectra.

I was under the impression that "conservative" and "liberal" and the like were more of an "overall" classification, rather than a statement on what every single one of your political views represented.

I've had so many people assume that since I'm pro-life, and tend to vote for Republicans ("tend"), that I automatically support things like DOMA, etc, when I don't. So many debates have just gone off on wild tangents like "Yeah, well, I can't understand why you support X, Y, Z." And I'm like "Um... I never said I did...?"

One purpose of large-reaching labels is that, in a society as pluralistic as the one we live in, we're able to have an extra sense of camaraderie, it can help mobilize forces to a greater degree. Although it also depends very largely on what country you're in, and what kind of government you have.

It's a way of identifying yourself to some extent with another group, but not necessarily at the cost of your individualism.

I think it adds a useful stability to the society, but not an inherently rigid stability. It provides a ground for people to organize for fairly similar viewpoints, and can give people the motivation necessary to achieve a lot.

Of course it has its downsides. It does have a tendency to reduce the amount of in-depth discussion, and make it more about who has the best phrase they throw out, instead of the most reasoned argument. Honestly, though, it's hard to say that that's what causes the lack of in-depth discussion, or whether it's perhaps something that happens naturally, and those who would blindly identify with a group are less likely to actually desire in-depth discussion.

I don't think one leads to the other, but they probably go hand-in-hand simply because the types who tend to do one exhibit the traits that cause them to be likely to do the other.

Perhaps it's a causal effect, but it's probably not anymore detrimental to political discussion than horse race politics (which, again, reflects more on the electorate than on the practice.) I think our best test would be to answer, "Would the people who stereotype based on terms such as 'conservative,' 'liberal,' 'Democrat,' or 'Republican' really be the types to contribute especially more to rational discourse if there wasn't this labeling pitfall?"

I think that intentional non-conformity is potentially quite as dangerous as oblivious conformity.

I would rather identify with a party than not, while retaining my ability to disagree with it when necessary.

Although with in-depth discussion, words like liberal and conservative probably aren't very useful because they're fairly vague, and not quite precise. Don't mistake that as an issue of political sensationalism (although there are issues with it); in this regard I'm just referring to sensible discourse haha.

I guess it's hard to say whether this type of labeling is more beneficial, or if it's detrimental, but I'd hazard a guess that with pros and cons both ways, the difference would likely be pretty minor.