Talk:Political spectrum

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Archive 2 New Model 3 "Westernized Political Spectrum" 3.1 How about this? 3.2 Conservative vrs. Liberal? 4 Fascism 5 Revision of multiaxis section 5.1 Vosem Question and Pournelle Question 6 An uncited definition 7 Theory 8 POV 9 Nolan chart or Nolan Chart? 10 Another spectrum - help me phrase it? 11 Model used by Ideology article 12 Political Compass 13 Interesting Point 14 Interpretations of the left-right axis 15 laissez-fairerepublic.com material cut from article 16 Uncited, unlikely, cut 17 America, left and right 18 "Erickson NPOV political chart" 18.1 Handling different topics differently 19 Stephane Dubois, and "Suggested Reading" section 20 AN EFFORT TO UNTANGLE THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THIS DISCUSSION 21 Blattberg 22 Abstract political psychology chart 23 Sociologist Paul Rey's two-axis model 24 [Utne Reader] Spectrum 25 Politopia 26 Eysenck's Model 27 Free trade and fair trade 28 "Equality" 29 Urban vs. Rural 30 Odd recent inclusion 31 European political spectrum graph

[edit] Archive

/Archive 1

[edit] New Model

http://www.originmap.org/ Actually, I made it. Juan Ponderas 08:04, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Seems similar to the 3-d model of the Friesian Institute. Have you checked that out? Follow the external link.

Harvestdancer

Uh... that doesn't seem too similar.

Juan Ponderas 00:34, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The originmap site should at least be admissable in the more permissive external links section with an explanatory title or phrase. It captures a different concept than the Friesian site.--Silverback 21:19, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, I was going to add it to the main article, but I was waiting to finish the site. But yeah, a comment would be good for now. Juan Ponderas 22:50, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ah yes, I see the difference. Technically you have four axes - negative economic, negative social, positive economic, positive social. Harvestdancer 22:58, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I do? I'm not sure how. Juan Ponderas 23:54, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Who has the power, how much power they have. That's 2. Both apply to economic or civil, that's 2. 2x2=4.Harvestdancer 23:20, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

(Please, Ignore this comment, see below).I suppose you could splice it into four, though I see know reason why. But the terms, positive and negative, is where I was thrown off. It sounds like a reference to positive and negative rights, but that is more along the lines of the Nolan Chart. While we're discussing this, can you think of any good names for my chart? Juan Ponderas 03:15, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean. I guess I associated positive liberty with positive rights, and didn't see what you meant by that, or how the Friesian model is similar. Juan Ponderas 02:24, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Examining it more closely, I think I was wrong. It seems you are using only 2 axes, to cover both the amount of power and who holds the power, making the assertion that if you are in between majority and minority, you are close to libertarian. That's an assertion that needs work though. Harvestdancer 21:20, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Well, you have that assertion dead-on. And yes, it needs work. Unlike the Friesian Institute, I'm prepared to go to war to promote my chart, but the most important thing is to develope the reasoning behind the assertions I'm making. To that end I'm setting up a Wiki. Nearly all articles are unstarted, and the look is not at all finished, but when those are done I will submit my site to the search engines, something I haven't done, and start checking around some sites in an attempt to get some small community involved. Essentially, I need to prove two things. First, that authoritarians and communitarians advocate different agendas on a wide range of issues. If the standard for political models is that they must not place different ideologies in the same place, this discounts the Nolan Chart. Then the assertion you stated, to prove it over the Friesian model. And some other interesting ones, like how historical movements follow a more or less straight line on my chart but make a weird u-turn on the Nolan and a V on the Friesian. And of course, building a test to exceed Political Compass's; that shouldn't be hard, they labeled me as a libertarian. As it is, my site looks nicer than theirs. Hope this wasn't too far off subject... Juan Ponderas 05:02, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "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:

1. Non-Western countries have a different left-right paradigm (China is an especially good example)
2. 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).

Example (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)

[edit] 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. Example (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 ;) Example (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)

[edit] 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 ;) Example (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)

[edit] Fascism

It is apparent that nobody likes Fascism, because those who would describe themselves as "right wing" would prefer to place Fascism on the left while those who would describe themselves as "left wing" would prefer to place Fascism on the right. Traditionally it is listed as Right Wing Socialism. Perhaps using the phrase "and also Fascism" instead of "and Fascism" will soften to tone, or adding commentary as to it's disputed but traditional placement.Harvestdancer 16:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The existence of Fascism makes a mess of the idea "Left:equality::Right:liberty". If Left and Right have any coherent meaning, the Left stands for equality while the Right stands for order, in my humble opinion. --Anton Sherwood 19:25, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

If "left" and "right" were each easily reducible to another single, common word, we probably would not have the terms "left" and "right". - Jmabel | Talk 20:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 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.

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

[edit] 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, Example (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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] POV

The section about the Pournelle Chart makes a very POV statement when it labels anarchists as "given to tossing bombs around for the fun of it". As an anarchist I find this offensive. I have never been violent and definetly never would be for the fun of it, and neither would any other true anarchists. Some anarchists engage in political violence which they deem necessary, but it is not a matter of "fun". And to characterize all anarchists as violent is incredibly ignorant. Perhaps a better way of describing anarchists on the Pounelle Chart would be to define more what Pournelle means by "rational" and "irrational" and come up with a better reason why anarchists are supposedly irrational. (By: Upset anarchist 1:08 am, June 23 2005, Pacific Standard time)

I am back again and was re-reading this section of the article. I now understand what was meant by rationalism (I was too tired to get it last night) and I disagree with the placement of anarchism. Perhaps it should be stated that this is only his idea of where it goes. While I would agree it believe at the far left of the statism line, it should be in the middle or above the middle with regards to rationalism. It describes "those on the top [as] believing that all the evils their ideology attempts to fight would go away if only their ideals were instituted"--a statement which I (and I assume most other anarchists) agree with. I do not express "blind, celebratory attachment to their ideology for its own sake". I don't really know how to make this part of the article better, perhaps just noting that it is controversial or something. (By: Upset Anarchist 10:12 am Pacific Standard Time) Upset anarchist: as an offended anarchist, why not try suing in court?

Personally, I believe the "rationalism" axis should be renamed "idealism". The problem with the placement, of course, is perhaps inherent in the Pournelle chart. I would place anarcho-socialism on the top, and anarcho-capitalism lower down.

In any case, I rewrote the definition of "rationalism", using terms I believe to be much closer to the definitions used by Pournelle. In addition, I altered the text to make clear that the placements were made by Pournelle. I hope that takes care of your concerns.

The No Original Content rule prevents us from doing anything other than listing criticisms about models that are inherently flawed. The separate Pournelle chart article survived the vote for deletion, and perhaps your criticism of its placement should be listed there. The section here should probably be reverted back to a summary. If you're interested, I'm creating politicalmodel.org to allow for discussion on the topic and gathering of analysis on various models. Juan Ponderas

Thanks, that is a lot better, though I do still disagree with the rationalism thing. Either way, like you say, there really isn't a way to express that on the page. At least it isn't quite as offensive now. I will look at the Pournelle Chart main page I guess. (No Longer Upset Anarchist, 4:17 PST)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] laissez-fairerepublic.com material cut from article

I have cut the following from the article:

<Begin cut material>

Up versus Down: a "Vertical" Linear 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

<End cut material>

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

[edit] 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)

[edit] America, left and right

Cut from article:

In North America, liberal refers almost exclusively to new liberalism or social liberalism, and is generally assigned to the center-left (see Liberalism in America). However, the right in the United States, which self-identifies as 'conservative', is heavily influenced by classical European liberalism, especially the emphasis in classic British liberalism on the rights of the individual versus the state. Hostility toward the U.S. federal government, as a perceived threat to individual liberty, is found among both "liberals" and "conservatives".

I think the above smacks of the Democratic Party's view of left and right, or the New York Times view, or the liberal view. Take your pick.

It seems to me that US liberals and conservatives paint the political spectrum differently.

Liberals (if you ask people like Bernard Goldberg, the CBS commentator fired after a WSJ op-ed about liberal bias) tend to think of themselves as moderate or centrist. They call conservatives right or far right.

Conservatives bristle at being called right (other than "correct" of course ;-) because they generally despise Hitler and fascism. They call liberals left.

So I don't see any clear, agreed-upon spectrum of left and right. Not with liberals and conservatives refusing to accept a common spectrum.

The result is more like this:

group	self-concept	how they label opponents
US liberals	moderate, middle of the road	right-wing
US conservatives		left-wing

Sorry, this table is incomplete. I don't know everything. If I thought I really had something here I would just insert it directly into the article. But maybe I'm on to something, eh? Uncle Ed 17:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Ed, that may be true of how the terms are used in contentious political debate, but in world terms, or political science terms, where the political spectrum extends left to socialist, communists, etc., clearly there is a lot to the left of American liberals. The thing that really needs to be in the intro, though is that free-market liberalism is usually considered center-right and social liberalism center-left; the specifically U.S. connection does not absolutely need to be in the lead, though I think it would be useful to indicate that "liberalism" in Europe (esp. on the continent) usually means "free-market liberalism", while in the U.S., unless specifically qualified by an adjective, it always means "social liberalism". -- Jmabel | Talk 06:56, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like we're getting somewhere. Please take the lead on this. Uncle Ed 16:09, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "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

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] AN EFFORT TO UNTANGLE THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THIS DISCUSSION

There seems to be considerable effort to devise an all inclusive political spectrum. In the process of trying to do that, other items are introduced into the picture, i.e., economic spectrum, societal benefits, individualism vs the state, ideology, etc. Maybe we should try to correctly identify and keep separate each spectrum:

POLITICAL SPECTRUM

Democracy_______________________________________________________Totalitarian

ECONOMIC SPECTRUM

Centrally Planned_______________________________________________ Market

IDEOLOGICAL SPECTRUM

Socialism____________________Liberalism_________________________Conservative

Socialist system: political,economic, and social equality (Has never existed in modern society).

Liberal system: 1. private ownership of property, 2. individualistic, 3. competitive, 4.limited government.

Conservative system: based on inequality, your position in life is determined at birth (medieval Europe).

These spectra are separate from the other. Therefore, it is possible in a democratic society for the people, through democratic processes, to have either a centrally planned or market economic system(or anything in between). If they can't--it is not a democracy. A totalitarian society can have either a market economic system(fascism) or centrally planned(USSR)(or anything in between).

IDEOLOGY is the subject that makes it difficult to sort all of this out. In many countries, it is not recognised that a society has an ideology. Every society has an ideology. It is like a secular religion that shapes a person in that society as to what is perceived as truth, motivation, ultimate goals, etc. A person probably starts acquiring ideological instructions along with their mother's milk(an exaggeration). Ideological instructions being acquired at such an early age means that the citizen doesn't know he has acquired these instructions and thinks that the values he has acquired are the "truth" or "human nature". This situation then makes it difficult for us to agree as to what we are trying to accomplish in this discussion. Maybe--maybe, we should regroup and try to establish a universal recognition of the three separate spectra and that we really shouldn't be trying to merge them into one universal spectrum.

See: economic spectrum

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paganbaby (talk • contribs) 11 Dec 2005.

This is a fail. What about a democracy which elects...HITLER? Would that be Democratic or Totalitarian? Also, what about a society where people take turns being absolute rulers? Once again, Democratic or Totalitarian? What about an ideology which allows gay marriage but not freedom of speech? Socialist or Conservitive? QED.

[edit] Blattberg

I have to say: while Blattberg is certainly citable given his role as an academic, his claim (accurately paraphrased here as "the spectrum is best understood as based upon different ways of responding to conflict: conversation (left), negotiation (centre), or force (right)," seems to me like just a slam at the right, unless he wants to make the odd argument that the original Left during the French Revolution weren't really on the left, nor were the Bolsheviks. Pretty weird. -- Jmabel | Talk 09:21, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Abstract political psychology chart

Another uncited addition, and the text about it sounds almost like a sales pitch. Does someone have a citation for this, or should it be removed? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:35, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

"Abstract-political-psychology" gets zero Google hits. Wiwaxia 22:49, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Cut. For the record, here it is. -- Jmabel | Talk 06:42, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Abstract political psychology chart

This chart is unlike all other ideology classification charts because, instead of classifying ideologies based upon superficial similarities, it classifies ideologies based upon the abstract properties of the fundamental emotions that cause them, which are in turn reflected in the properties of the ideologies that those emotions produce. Such emotions come in opposing pairs that surround a central non-ideological neutral point.

The emotions, and in turn the ideologies that they create, are characterized by the 4 properties: forceful, subtle, seeping, and defined. Forcefulness and subtlety are opposites on 1 of 2 spectrums, and seepingness and definition are opposites on the other spectrum. The 2 spectrums are perpendicular to eachother, such that they do not effect eachother.

The 3 ideologies in the upper right of the chart are the most common, the 2 ideologies in the upper-left and lower-right corners are somewhat less common, and the 3 ideologies in the lower left of the chart are rare.

[end cut material]

[edit] Sociologist Paul Rey's two-axis model

Paul Rey is the sociologist who geeked over a lot of survey data to identify the group called [Cultural Creatives]. In later work he reused the same data to produce a two-dimensional political spectrum which is unfortunately also called The New Political Compass, the subject of a book by the same name and a pre-print paper which has been floating around for several years. Since it has some bases in multivariate analyses of survey data (admitting it is also sociology, which is hardly math), it may be a good model to include in the PoliticalSpectrum page. Here is an excerpt from a [a paper] which describes it a bit:

"Rey has continued his work in a soon to be published book The New Political Compass in which he argues with statistical data that the left-right break down of politics is now largely irrelevant and proposes a new political compass. The 4 directional compass is a fascinating tool for showing the complexity of public opinion, mapping not only political beliefs but also cultural shift. Rey contrast the left of New Deal liberalism and big government as “West” with the “East” of cultural conservatism and the religious right. Rey gives north on his compass to a grouping he calls the New Progressives who are heavily composed of cultural creatives and completely unrepresented in the current political system. He defines their major concerns as ecological sustainability, corporate dominance, child welfare, health care, education, a desire for natural products and personal growth. He contrasts them with “south” on his compass the Big Business Paradigm of profits before planet and people, economic growth and globalization. Again his statistical data has profound messages for all of us working to change the world. He estimates that whereas only 14% of the population supports the Big Business paradigm, 36% of people fall into the New Progressives category.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 156.153.254.42 (talk • contribs) 16 Feb 2006.

Okay, so this model has an axis of big government liberalism vs. religious conservatism and an axis of "new progressivism" vs. traditional big business. Where exactly would this model place anarchist cooperatives or libertarian entrepreneurs? --FOo 06:56, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] [Utne Reader] Spectrum

While this one apparently isn't based on sociological statistical data, it has some currency because it helps place and distinguish anarchists. It was originally developed to distinguish US-style (Ayn Rand?) libertarianism from (Goldman/Berkman/Chomsky) anarchism.

The UTNE article does not appear to be on line, but here's [a paper about it] from which the follwing is excerpted:

"This alternative spectrum takes as its objective "foundation," its standard, its "yardstick" with which to gauge various ideologies, two primary questions: the question of property ownership, and the question of State control. The graph is composed of two axes, one (left- right) representing the variations of systems of property ownership, the other (top-bottom) representing the variations of State control over society.

"The "property" axis varies from total collectivization of property (community control of land and the "means of production") to total privatization of property (individual ownership of land and the "means of production"). The "State" axis varies from total control or eminence of State government (totalitarianism, or centrism) to total absence or extremely minimal State government (decentralism ).

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 156.153.254.42 (talk • contribs) 16 Feb 2006.

[edit] Politopia

"…a quiz that is considered fairly accurate in comparison to many previous tests set forth before it." Considered by whom? (Other than its creator.) And "set forth before it" seems like very pretentious wording here, unless they have somehow been physically placed in front of it. - Jmabel | Talk 21:32, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Eysenck's Model

I've expanded Eysenck's section and am considering adding an image, although I'm not sure whether it's needed, how to add it, and whether the image is within the public domain. If others agree that it's a legitimate piece to include, the image is found online in the page www.ditext.com/eysenck/politics.html ; the image address itself is http://www.ditext.com/eysenck/8.jpg . Harkenbane 20:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Free trade and fair trade

I'm unhappy with the free trade/fair trade axis under alternative spectra. There are those (you may consider us wrong!) who believe trade should be both free and fair. In my opinion, *unfair* trade is trade where monopoly power or some other effect causes trade prices to be very unfair to one party (usually the grower). *unfree* trade is, typically, where protectionist policies act to encourage people to buy locally rather than import. These are separate issues, as regulation which prevents *unfair* trade by curbing monopoly power is not particularly connected to regulation which acts to prevent imports per se. There should be a fair/unregulated axis, and a free/protectionist axis. Setting it up as a free-market/controlled-market dichotomy is not NPOV, because it dismisses the view of those of us who believe not in a competition between the free market and government control, but rather that free markets, (and in particular international trade), are desirable, but regulation is necessary to make them work, as in theory they should, for the benefit of all players in the market.

I haven't changed the article yet. I suggest subbing it with "some believe that... while others believe trade can be both free and fair, so these are not opposing forces". No need to pollute the main article with my above waffle! I'm sure lots of other moderates think that free and fair trade are both good, and *not inconsistent with each other*, and characterising them as opposites seems to overly favour the POV of those at the extremes. Note that I claim they're not inconsistent. Claiming they're both good would just put me at the middle of the axis. Claiming they're not inconsistent is an argument that it's not an axis! Ucgajhe 00:28, 29 June 2006 [UST+1]

Can you find a reputable political scientist to cite on this? Or some political party who has used it in their literature? Or something similar? Otherwise, this is original research. It may deserve to be published somewhere, but it's not what Wikipedia is for. - Jmabel | Talk 21:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Equality"

"Equality of outcome (left) versus equality of opportunity (right)" says the article. Given that the origin of these terms is French Revolution: can anyone seriously say that the old aristocracy provided "equality of opportunity"? How about the segregationist right in the U.S. South 50 years ago?

This is one of those things where there are not simply two views, one left and the other right. Some socialists (including most communists) advocate equality of outcome; liberals of all stripes advocate equality of opportunity, as do many conservatives; many on the far right (fascists, advocates of traditional monarchy, theocrats, etc.) do not advocate equality at all. - Jmabel | Talk 02:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Urban vs. Rural

"The Urban vs. Rural axis was equally prominent in the United States' political past, but its importance is debatable at present." I recommend a Google search for "urban archipelago" if you think this is true. Probably plenty citable there for exactly this in the U.S. today. - Jmabel | Talk 02:48, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps a red v blue county map, like those here. Especially the one where the third dimension is population density, like this one. Argyriou (talk) 19:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that this is an electoral difference and not a political difference. In Scandinavia there are strong parties oriented at improving the situation of farmers. Is there such a political difference between the Republicans supporting (is not the same as getting support from) the country-side and Democrats supporting the cities? You can't prove that by maps. C mon 08:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

The whole "values" debate in the U.S. is essentially an urban vs. non-urban divide. Read Steve Sailer's essay on Affordable Family Formation for some perspective on what's driving the political divide in the U.S.. There are other essays, which I'm too lazy too look up, which talk about why people with kids are more likely to vote for socially conservative policies, even if they don't lead the ideal social-conservative lifestyle. Αργυριου (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Odd recent inclusion

"Support for cultural and economic autonomy (left), or support for globalization (right)". Unattributed. So Pat Buchanan is on the left and Bill Clinton on the right? - Jmabel | Talk 23:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I think the editor implied that the anti-globalization movement is one the left while global capitalism is on the right. C mon 08:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I guess that is largely true of this moment. But anything that claims to be definitional of left vs. right should be based on something longer term. Anyway, this one always struck me as a "both ends against the middle" issue. - Jmabel | Talk 06:05, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Does Taiwan independence-leaning and Chinese unification-leaning count as a type of political spectrum? I don't think there's anything else defining politics in taiwan. BlueShirts 07:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it would certainly be the defining spectrum in RoC politics. - Jmabel | Talk 04:42, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] European political spectrum graph

Just added a link to Social_liberalism#Social_liberalism_versus_social_democracy as this has a European political spectrum graph.

This is probably less than ideal for a few reasons:

- It is starting to link to an off-topic article (or should we perhaps add/link more of these compare and contrast articles?)

- Should this really be its own separate article or separate section within this article? At the moment I don't have the time/knowledge to do either of these approaches justice, but I think this graph is of significant relevance to link it here.

Thought I would just add this note to explain the addition -- feel free to edit/change this. Thanks.

Kenneth Heal 13:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)