Talk:Political spectrum/Archive 2

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)

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]

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.

&mdash;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)

[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 ).

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

European political spectrum graph
Just added a link to Social_liberalism 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)

New Template: Lib
I just created a new template Template:Lib. (It's my first template). It takes one parameter, declaring whether the use on the page is "liberal", "libertarian", or "both". My idea was to use it to head articles such as Liberal International and Libertarian perspectives on gay rights where it might not be clear at first glance which meaning is intended. This would hopefully ensure consistent usage within an article, and prevent overly verbose unclear repetition from article to article. Feel free to discuss on the talk page Template_talk:Lib. samwaltz 20:38, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Participation Spectrum
Is Tyrrany the best word for rule by one person? It seems to imply that monarchs of all types are tyrrants. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 22:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Eight Ways to Run the Country
I think this book needs its own page. The ideas discussed within in are beyond the scope of a paragraph summary, because what is discussed is quintessentially a new philosophy, not merely an argument for or against. Nor do I have any doubt that this book will eventually be canon political discussion.

Additionally, the article is already quite long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tcaudilllg (talk • contribs) 20:42, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Correct Understanding of Right and left in Relation to two-axis model
This is what I modestly call the Dixon Chart, first published in the Anarchist Age Monthly Review (Australia). "Right" is moving clockwise around the chart, "Left" is (duh) moving counterclockwise. The radius of the circle is the "radius of possibility" which defines the amount of freedom and equality possible at any given stage, a feature which I believe no other chart incorporates. Jeremy (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Of course, "left" and "right" makes little sense around the nadir point, another real world feature. The "democracy" point may make poitical scientists wince but it reflects the concepts used by my informants. In a society that values both freedom and equality (as cotrasted with "order" and "degree") positively the political norm will hover around this point. Jeremy (talk) 00:48, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Moral politics
Should there be a section on this Politics Test in this article. Is it notable enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fang 23 (talk • contribs) 22:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

New Model
Any attempt on my part to include the concept of "governance by consent," "consent of the people," "advise and consent," "government of the people, by the people, for the people" into the definition of "political spectrum" has been frustrated.

I will no longer attempt to make any such inclusions. Instead, when the topic of Wikipedia comes up, I will simply label this document as a fraud, an ideological attempt to edit OUT the very basis of representative government :: consent.

Wikipedia is a totalitarian ideological document. Okay. That's how it is.

Emily Cragg, webmaster www.abidemiracles.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.41.123.230 (talk) 22:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

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)

Spelling error in image "An example of the Political Spectrum"
"Conservative" is spelled "conservitive". Vloxul (talk) 08:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Suggested Rewrite
This page has been around for quite some time, but I've noticed that it seems to propose numerous models with little scientific basis. The fact that the article is still rated as "Start Class" despite high importance suggests to me that it needs serious revision on the basis of empirical science. To give only one example, consider the Pournelle chart - it is an interesting idea, but so far as I know it lacks any empirical support. I think that a rewrite is in order. Harkenbane (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, my New Model above (under Correct Understanding etc above) is based on an honours thesis for Latrobe University linguistics, I did a survey and analysed the results etc, and while I didn't propose the New Model in the thesis the materials for it (such as circular character of left-right line) are certainly there and arise from empirical evidence......does this mean that my model is the only one with any empirical backing at all ? I think it may......Hmm, it has appeared in print too, in the Anarchist press.....hmmm.....Jeremy (talk) 02:17, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That model is essentially an extension of Rokeach's research (not in the article), which itself can be viewed as a replication of Eysenck's later research (also absent, although his earlier research does appear). So no, yours isn't the only model based on research, but I think the article should be rewritten so that it focuses on material like yours. Are there any other opinions? Harkenbane (talk) 22:05, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I realize that there have been many contributors to the article, but it's been two weeks, and unless anyone can give good reasons in opposition to a rewrite, I will initiate one. Harkenbane (talk) 16:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Good luck, looking forward to finding out about Rokeach and Eysenck's thoughts. Jeremy (talk) 06:00, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I've completed the basic rewrite. Although readers will notice that the change was rather drastic, I made an effort to preserve anything I thought might deserve to stay in; I would have deleted the unscientific spectra and reduced the Nolan Chart to a few sentences if I were writing the article alone. On the other hand, I think more could be added to flesh out the scientific section, but I tried to keep this to a reasonable length. Harkenbane (talk) 21:33, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Rokeach must have given a diagram?, anyway the article needs it, can we have a diagram? if he didn't diagram his findings and the OR rule forbids wikipedia creating diagrams then I reckon in this case so much the worse for the OR rule. Diagram is clearly needed here.Jeremy (talk) 03:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Eysenck made quite a few diagrams (and you can see some here: www.ditext.com/eysenck/politics.html ) although Rokeach wasn't much for them, if memory serves. Unfortunately I think any such diagrams are covered under copyright, but if you'd like to make some images, feel free! Harkenbane (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, among the "non-scientific" charts the Christie-Meltzer effort deserves a mention. It has been important in (at least) english-speaking anarchism. And the tone of the introduction to non-scientific accounts is excessively patronising, it is not obvious that they are any less reliable than the "scientific" efforts. Jeremy (talk) 03:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, it isn't clear that nonscientific charts have any reliability or validity, because they were never tested. Even worse, if there really did exist a meaningful dimension of (for example) "interventionism (the nation should exert power abroad to implement its policy) vs. non-interventionism (the nation should keep to its own affairs)" then why didn't it ever show up under Ferguson's factor analysis, Eysenck's factor analysis, or even the Internet principal components analysis at http://politics.beasts.org/ or Inglehart's factor analysis of the World Values Survey? When studies are carried out, they repeatedly find that political values - even those which may seem independent of Ferguson's/Eysenck's/Rokeach's dimensions - do in fact share variance with Ferguson's/Eysenck's/Rokeach's dimensions. Harkenbane (talk) 16:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (After re-reading that section, I give in; it was rather patronizing, so I rewrote the paragraph you didn't like. See what you think of it now, and if you still think it can be improved, "be bold" and edit it! Harkenbane (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC))
 * Thanks Harkenbane.....look I agree that some of the proposed axes are apparently motivated by narrow polemical concerns and are actually a bit silly. Indeed, as you know, I agree that "freedom" and "equality" are the actual defining parameters in English, and I will read Rokeach when I get a chance. However, the intuitions of a native speaker of a language are at the centre of "scientific" linguistics, exploring ones own intuitions is not necessarily an unscientific procedure (and imo wouldn't necessarily be illegitimate if it was). Even in terms of the discipline (whether science or humanity) of semantics the type of methodology used by Rokeach et al has its critics. The Australian semanticist Anna Wierzbicka springs to mind. You are doing a great job. Are more diagrams impossible? Jeremy (talk) 00:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Aha! That depends; are you going to make or find some diagrams to put in? Harkenbane (talk) 03:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I do think your rewrite was a little extreme, especially since all the multi-axis models except Nolan were cut out. Renaming alternative spectra to unscientific spectra implies the other spectra outside of that section are scientific, which is POV. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me
 * Thinking it over some more, I am sure it is POV. The "scientific" section isn't really all that more scientific than the "unscientific" section. Jason Harvestdancer | Talk to me 14:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The spectra listed in the scientific section were all discovered through empirical study (generally by the process of factor analyzing large response sets). What studies point to the independent existence of any of the spectra in the unscientific section? Are there some you can name? If there aren't any scientific studies supporting these spectra, then, why are you sure they are as scientific as the spectra which actually have been supported by scientific studies? Harkenbane (talk) 02:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

The term "scientific" should not be used as a mantra, a practice isn't "scientific" just because someone with a science degree does it. A theory is scientific if it is, or to the degree that it is, explanatory and testable. Yes? That means that a theory can be true without being scientific, and scientific without being true. And we also have to be clear about what we are seeking to explain and test. In my work I was interested in the materials from which names for political systems could be contructed, that is to say in defining terms used to describe political systems. Other people may have other concerns. I'm a bit concerned about the high credibility given to factor analysis btw, I'm not sure waht it measures. Jeremy (talk) 01:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, in practical usage no claim can be considered "scientific" that hasn't been validated by a single study. You are of course correct that a theory can be true without being scientific, and likewise scientific findsings are not always true. But Wikipedia isn't a truth dealer; we can only report what is most likely, while trying to mention other claims with an outside chance of being true. All else being equal, a claim backed by a scientific study is more likely to be true than a claim without any such validation, and the gap in likelihood only increases as more validations come in.


 * One thing I'd like to make clear is that I don't think that any given spectrum you could name or imagine probably doesn't exist, and I hope the article doesn't imply this as written. What I do believe is that such a "spectrum X" is unlikely to exist outside of and independent to the two basic factors which have already been discovered and repeatedly verified. Even splitting the Radicalism factor into social and economic spectra isn't necessary because economic and social beliefs dovetail in the nations studied. That's the nature of factor analysis; it finds all the factors needed to explain the variance in a dataset. Thus, while we might say for example that "there is a spectrum dividing greens on one side and industrialists on the other" this probably is just another way of looking at the two factors we already know about, R and T (or Humanitarianism and Religionism). I think it's pretty easy to see most of the spectra in the "unscientific dimensions" section in this light, with anticlericalism being tough & radical, political violence being tough, unilateralism and organic state being conservative, and so on.


 * To address your last concern, factor analysis does have its foibles. For one thing, it doesn't work well on datasets where the number of questions approaches the number of respondents (but that isn't a problem in any of the research I've seen). A bigger issue is that factor analysis pulls underlying factors out of specific set of variables, which means in this case that if you don't ask people survey questions regarding (say) evolution, then your factors won't be quite what they would have been had a few questions on evolution been present. This was a problem in some of Eysenck's research on personality, which didn't have enough questions on imagination, artistic inclinations, appreciation for theory, or being normal to pull out the Openness factor of the Big Five personality traits. On the other hand, I can name half a dozen factor-analytic personality schema, and all of them have some form of Extraversion and Neuroticism. So, to make a long story short: when a researcher pulls a small number of factors out of a large dataset, the results can be considered pretty solid. Harkenbane (talk) 04:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh Harkenbane....you don't find this statement just a tiny little bit hilarious: ." Doing this revealed a split in the left-right axis between social and economic policy, with a previously undiscovered dimension of socialism-capitalism (S). " Political space has a socialism-capitalism axis, no kidding? The discovery, no doubt, for which Eysenck will be remembered. You don't find it just a tiny bit suspicious that Eysenck's "scientific" results dovetail so closely with Eysenck's own political beliefs? As to factor analysis I don't doubt that it is useful tool for "handling" data, but handling it is not the same as explaining it. In my country at the moment vegetariansim and left radicalism are very strongly correlated, but it ain't necessarily so, ask Hitler or the samurai. The Ptolemaic system covered the data for a long time, even predicting eclipes. factor analysis is surely prone to picking up superficialities and confusing scause and effect, in the end there is no substitute for insight.
 * 1. I haven't read anything about Eysenck's beliefs on economic matters; the discovery was a result of his noticing that social class seemed to divide people in ways that weren't explained by R and T. 2. Factor analysis is the same as explaining data, although it can't by itself dictate what to name the factors. 3. Hitler was a single person, not a dataset; likewise, we can't know the political orientation of the Samurai, or indeed whether R & T existed before the advent of democracy. 4. Insight is a necessary component of hypothesis generation; the key to determining whether any given insight is meaningful is to test it and see. Harkenbane (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you have done great work on this page in letting in Eysenck and Rokeache, but I also think you've been too hasty in dismissing contributions from outside the social scientist..erm ...club. Just by the way, on my chart of which I am very proud, based on a combination of research and my own attempt at insight, Eysenck's tender/tough axis would be measured by a line stretching from my "nadir" point to my "democracy" point. Jeremy (talk) 02:16, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, look, I've restored the deleted "unscientific" models (and also interfered a little elsewhere) I think the stuff on Eysenck and Rokeach is invaluable, we definitely need to know what the sociologists are up to, but I also think the baby was rather thrown out with the bathwater. Turning to a poitical spectrum article I definintely want to know about Pournelle et al. Jeremy (talk) 11:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You should probably provide better justification for wanting to include lengthy descriptions on unscientific claims than "I want to read about them on Wikipedia." Can you do that? Harkenbane (talk) 20:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah, Harkenbane, "and I also think other people who consult wikipedia about 'political spectrum' will want to read about them". Sociologists, in Anna Wierzbicka's phrase "study people as if they were insects or stones"....which has its place in my opinion but is not necessarily the only or the best way to approach human thought and behaviour. I was trained in linguistics, where exploration of ones intuitions as a native speaker of the language is the foundational procedure. Surely that is basically what what you call the "unscientific" political thinkers are doing. Of course, testing is good. But it is not obvious what the best testing method is....when an analysis is found useful and durable, like the left-right axis itself, that is in itself of interest. You say that factor analysis is the same as "explaining" data, to which I am tempted to just blow a raspberry; but instead will remark that it is by your own showing subject to a garbage in - garbage out effect. Exactly what it explains is in any case open to question. Are you saying that factor analysis will expose the psychologically real underpinnings of semantic structures? A big claim, I'd be interested to know how it was tested and verified. In linguistic semantics, "scientific semantics" if you like, there was a similar procedure once called componential analysis. "Run" for example was supposed to have the components "+fast" and "+travel" and "+by foot", while "walk" was similar but "-fast". It would take an awful lot of "insects and stones" research to discover what any English speaker can discover by a bit of introspection, that this analysis is plain wrong; even if not vacuous in that the components beg the question....I won't get too far of the track here, I am trying to make the point that what academic social scietists currently do is not necessarily privileged over other ways of seeking the truth. My point that Eysenck's research dovetailed with his own views to a suspicious extent was supported in the wikipedia article as it stood at writing. You might reckon that it is impossible to know if "R and T" existed before democracy, and I can see that would be true if truth can only be approached by the methods you privilege......but historians for example may  be interested in just that very question. So what are we to do if we want to understand the attitudes of the Peasants Revolt but can't put John Ball and Jack Straw in a data set and subject them to factor analysis? You seriously find nothing funny in Eysenck solemnly announcing his belated discovery of a socialism-capitalism dimension to political space?
 * A more serious problem with the article as it stands is that it does not distinguish between models that purport to show people's political positions and models that purport to show the actual political options, not necessarily the same thing. And there is a third possibility, a model can purport to show what people think the actual political options are. These are distinct if related questions, but that is not reflected in the article. Jeremy (talk) 01:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

linear political spectrum chart
Henkt posted this left-right spectrum (including the intro verbiage) ...

While I appreciate your efforts Henkt, and I want you to contribute, this left-right spectrum is flawed (as, of course, are all left-right spectra). Is libertarianism really left of anarchy? Perhaps it is right of conservatism? Hmmm. --  GUÐSÞEGN  – UTEX – 03:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed. He also posted it to Politics‎ (I've since removed it). May want to try engaging him on his userpage to get his attention, though I don't know if he even responds to it. 206.126.163.20 (talk) 22:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Another Political Chart
This is also an interesting chart, which could be adapted...:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.247.85.103 (talk • contribs) 06:01,02:52, 2 December 2009  (UTC)
 * You need a source. The Four Deuces (talk) 06:04, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Nolan-Eysenck Confusion
In the Nolan Chart section, it says that the Nolan Chart is a 90 degree rotation of the Eysenck chart. Given that the Eysenck Chart includes an elementary Left-Right axis and the Nolan Chart a derived Left-Right axis, wouldn't the Nolan Chart be, if anything, a 45 degree rotation? 71.251.132.238 (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Is this not original research, anyway? Surely this has been discussed elsewhere? To me, if it's a 45 degree rotation (which it seems to be), it completely conflates what research has shown to be the two main factors. Surely that's comment-worthy. --Russell E (talk) 12:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed
I think the article needs multiple citations for "Most research and political theory since this time has replicated the factors shown above". It goes on to discuss one quaint little website and one more expansive looking one which nevertheless does not directly cite any peer-reviewed research. If this statement is correct, there ought to be several peer-reviewed publication to which the article could refer.--Russell E (talk) 11:52, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

3D models
The online game Jennifer Government: NationStates uses a three-dimensional spectrum, as shown in this image. Are there any real 3D models similar to it? If not, do you think this one could be mentioned in the article as an aditional approach to the issue? --Waldir talk 20:36, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

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:

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)

Many of the US founding institutions were classically liberal so conservatism and classic liberalism are one in the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 10:11, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

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

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

-This doesn't make a lot of sense. What about Anarchism, which is a anti-state variant of socialism? It does not "do" the free market, but its opposed to central anything. A spectrum that can't account for one of the biggest social movements of 1800s and early 1900s really isn't useful. Justs having a socialism<>free market scale works much better, because you can put the anarchists in the socialism square, the libertarians and stateless-capitalists in the free-market square, and be done with it. Here:

I'll grant that putting conservatism at the authoritarian/freemarket corner is probably a bit controversial and would require discussion, but basically thats where pinochet was at, and he was probably the ultimate conservative. 121.45.226.70 (talk) 12:41, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

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.

What about fascism, left and right nationalism, communism, social democracy, libertarianism, anarchism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 09:41, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

How can you put conservatism as authoritarianism and liberalism as democracy? That makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 09:43, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

"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)

Segregationist left (Malcom X, Black Panthers,etc) were the same as the segregationist right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 09:59, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

U.S.-centric descriptions
The descriptions in this article tend to center on United States politics, where the terms "liberal" and "conservative" are opposites of each other. Compare this to the more globally-oriented Wikipedia articles on liberalism and conservatism, which define completely independent philosophies. (The article on liberalism even defines "liberal conservatives", which in the U.S. we would call "libertarians".)

I would summarize that liberalism is generally the opposite of authoritarianism, and conservatism is generally the opposite of change, and neither of them define the left/right axis very well unless you refer to their overloaded American meanings.

So can we find a way to distinguish "left" and "right" in the intro section without referring to U.S. political ideologies?  r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  07:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Are you sure that's even possible? In my experience, Brian Mitchell's work is the most consistent with reality, and even with polling. Everything works just as he says it does.


 * There is a lot of criticism over left vs. right even in America. The real problem is actual research which proves one idea over the other to a degree that there can be a consensus between "left and right". Mitchell's work is new and not many people are aware of it. I told my Pol Science professor about it, and he was dismissive. After all, Mitchell is a reporter and not a PhD holder in Pol Sci, whether his theory is credible or no. Tcaudilllg (talk) 06:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the US spectrum is that many of the Founding institutions are classically liberal so modern conservatism is classically liberal unlike Europe were monarchy and theocracy reigned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 10:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

What about this table?
Hello, people. I made this table on Political Spectrum. Tell me if there is something wrong or if it is an useful table.

Note: It is only applicable to western countries, and on major cultural issues.

In the case of white national states like Germany, England, etc, white can be replaced by German, English, etc, respectively. I would set Libertarianism between Progressiveand Neoliberal ideology (Center-Center-Left).

Please if you think you do not fit on this table, let me now.

Yes, it is about race, but race is a major issue in the right-left spectrum.

Eagle of Fire (talk) 13:04, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Coincidentally, I created another similar table: Template:2D Political spectrum Singwaste (talk) 20:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree neoliberslism must be at the center, but nazism and communism are too close. The racial problem must keeps them separated, I guess. Anyway, it will work very foine in a non-western nation, perhaps. But, at the west, nazism and communism are opposite views.Eagle of Fire (talk) 02:14, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * This chart is based on a market anarchist POV, not a white nationalist one. So white nationalists would see this as inaccurate.

71.185.237.45 (talk) 15:11, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a problem when totalitarism is counted as a ideology. It is not, it is just a way to reach an ideal, not an ideal itself. A totalitarian government would force people to dress red clothes, but other one would force them to not dress clothes at all. You see?

Totalitarism is an method, not ideology. The same with anarchism. Stalinism and Anarcho-Communism are both trying to get the same ideals: Total Equality, but the method are distinct. They bith are in the left spectrum, while white nationalist and conservative's ideal is Conservation (may be racial conservation or cultural conservation), but they have the same basic ideals. I do not know what is the problem here, nationalism and conservatism are right, and anarcho-Communist and communism are left. The right-left spectrum works to me, the difference are the methods.Eagle of Fire (talk) 16:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of problems with the table. Here are a couple:

1) "Neoconservatives" want a "Christian-majority nation"? Neoconservatism has nothing to do with religion and includes atheists. Neoconservatives are on the Right by virtue of their militarism and, to a lesser extent, economic conservatism. Indeed, the term itself originates from their being formally classified as liberals on the basis of antiquated spectra such as the "major cultural issues." While the pyschoanalytic approach may reveal a neoconservative preference, it should be admitted that for neoconservatives Religion/Demographics is not as important as foreign policy as for "Culture" vs. "economy" for Neoliberals.

2) "Portions of different parties" could apply to any of the camps, not only Neoliberals. The Democratic Party (USA), it happens, would sooner call itself Neoliberal than Left Social Democratic; both Neoliberals and Left Social Democrats would agree. Nor does the DP want "Open borders". Nor do DP higher-ups wear the sort of dashikis, sombraros, and moccasins one would expect from a party that despises "the Western" culture.

Also, you contradict yourself with the whole method-ideology distinction. Assuming as you do that method has nothing to do with ideology, that means and ends can be classified so simplistically, your argument still fails. Anarchism is an end as long as there are people who favor an anarchistic end and others who don't. Similarly, totalitarianism is an end as long as there are those who favor a totalitarian end and others who don't. As there are all of these, Totalitarianism and Anarchism are not merely methods. White nationalists and conservatives, a poor analogy, do differ ideologically (at least on your spectrum). Unlike Anarcho-communists and Stalinists, if you can be taken seriously, they differ in degree on the axis examined. Even if it can be believed that "Conservation" is antonymous to "Communism", it's impossible to believe that "race" and "culture" are "methods". And if that weren't enough, another implied "method", "economy", appears to be a "method to" nothing or a "method to" itself. Tomblikebomb (talk) 21:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

COMMENT ON YOUR CHART. -Neoconservatives are largely Jewish and are not social moralist. -Neoliberalism is right wing. -Conservatives do not want a white majority nation. That is absurd. -Nationalist is not just far right. White Nationalist is far right, Black nationalist is far left, Civic nationalism is center. -Communists and State Socialist are far left -Democratic Socialism is left -Modern Social Democrat is now center left Dunnbrian9 (talk) 08:17, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

where's the contradiction?

 * This axis is often considered perpendicular to the left-right axis ... but is a legitimate axis in itself ....

Why "but"? Of course each of a set of independent axes is perpendicular to the others. —Tamfang (talk) 21:46, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Uh, not quite. Independence is a weaker condition than orthogonality. —Tamfang (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Anarchy to Total Government Spectrum
I mean no offense to all the charts listed and descriptions, yet why are all the political systems list here in squares.

The actual systems are not Communist to the far left and Fantasist to the right. Both these systems are against liberty. Why don't any of these systems go based off total freedom. You would have anarchy of no government on one side with the other side total loss of liberty (mind, body) which would be a total government.

Source: http://politicalpistachio.blogspot.com/2011/01/anarchists-do-not-want-anarchy.html Source Image: http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_L2yi20l2PRU/TSHkNfKx6NI/AAAAAAAAFDM/7Z6lweJ9MlU/s1600/scan0001.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Z44sms (talk • contribs) 22:45, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * The charts are squares because it takes (at least) two variables to describe the range of political opinion. The "left-right" convention buries important differences. —Tamfang (talk) 03:33, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

"Other proposed dimensions" section
The infographic File:Political spectrum graphic.svg is misleading. In addition, it does not cite any reasonable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.2.240.222 (talk) 15:59, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


 * It's easy to say "misleading", but not terribly persuasive unless you say how it misleads. One flaw I see is that it conflates three related but not logically-equal axes: Powerful government vs No government, Communitarianism vs Individualism, Common ownership vs Individual ownership.  But any such chart must simplify by combining positions that are strongly correlated.
 * Worse is putting the labels Communitarianism and Individualism on arrows, suggesting that each is an axis – between what and what? Are anarchy and private property the opposite extremes of individualism?? —Tamfang (talk) 04:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

American Patriot Party Views the Nolan Chart as a Fallacy
Link: http://www.pacificwestcom.com/leftright

They have placed the "Locke Chart" which is based not upon vague political leanings, but on principles of property and other recognizable historical standards.

Several Charts are shown.


 * LOL. They clearly don't like the Nolan chart but sadly are too confused to explain why coherently. While we should include coverage of notable criticism of the various charts and models in this article this does not fall into that category.
 * Their own chart at the top, while highly amusing to the point where I wondered whether it was an intentional parody, is not worthy of inclusion in the article either as it appears to be made up to reflect an intuitive political sensibility, without any thought as to its coherence or objectivity. If it expressed a coherent idea, even one that was fairly non-mainstream and counter to the views of most of us here, then it could still be included if it had some degree of academic respectability. This doesn't and hasn't.
 * The funniest bit is their attempt to contrast "Arbitrary law" (i.e. "arbitrary laws that they happen to disapprove of") and "natural law" (i.e. "arbitrary laws they happen to agree with"), a distinction that is itself arbitrary and meaningless. In the UK, and many other countries, we had a party called the "Natural Law Party" however their idea of natural law was completely different and involved something called "yogic flying". Clearly there is no consensus as to what Natural Law really means and which particular laws are natural.
 * Their "Locke Chart" is not much better. If it really was the work of Locke then it would certainly be worthy of inclusion but it is just something else they have made up and put his name on. I am not sure what he would make of it.
 * The various charts presented in this Wikipedia article, including the Nolan Chart, are certainly not beyond criticism but they do represent genuine attempts by serious thinkers to step aside from their own viewpoints and model the full range of opinions in an objective and unbiased way, albeit maybe not with total success. That is a world away from a crude propagandistic chart that simply boils down to "Our side: Nice vague words. Everybody else: Nasty vague words" and the incoherent verbiage that accompanies it. It takes more than name-dropping a few real philosophers to elevate one's writing to any genuine philosophical status (as I was telling Plato only last night in the pub). --DanielRigal (talk) 21:19, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * In the "Locke Chart", does the horizontal axis mean anything? —Tamfang (talk) 02:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

HOW IS THIS ARTICLE NEUTRAL
? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

WHY IS THERE NOT A US POLITICAL SPECTRUM
The European one is far different than the American one where meanings are different. In Europe Libertarian means Anarchy. In the US Libertarian means small government and is conservative, not progressive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


 * If libertarianism is conservative, there are almost no conservatives in office anywhere in the world. —Tamfang (talk) 05:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Yea it is weird that theres not an American spectrum on here.
 * Left Nationalists and Left Anarchists
 * Socialists
 * Modern Liberals
 * Centrists
 * Conservatives
 * Libertarians
 * Right Nationalists and Right Anarchists — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 09:56, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

There should be a mutually agreed spectrum

 * Marxism is far left
 * Democratic Socialism is left
 * Democratic Capitalism is center, Third-way/Fascism is radical center
 * Laissez Faire Capitalism is right
 * Anarcho Capitalism is far right


 * Conservatives would be center right (laissez faire-leaning democratic capitalist)
 * Social Democrats would be center left (democratic socialist-leaning democratic capitalist)
 * Libertarians would be right (laissez faire capitalist)
 * etc

I dont think anyone could disagree with these.

Dunnbrian9 (talk) 09:54, 8 June 2011 (UTC)


 * The phrase "radical center" illustrates the inadequacy of any one-dimensional model. —Tamfang (talk) 01:06, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

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)


 * Any "spectrum" is simply a measurement device -- that is, a yardstick. To be meaningful, it must identify a variable and measure it unidirectionally. Less of what you're measuring will fall at one end, and more of it at the other. The electromagnetic spectrum is a good example as it measures wavelengths. Sound can be measured the same way, as can temperature, etc.


 * To validate any proposed political spectrum, we must first define the variable. But because multiple political variables are in play, new spectra have been proposed with both X and Y coordinates, but these can also be inadequate due to the fact that we're talking about human behavior, which is complex even beyond two variables. To avoid confusion, I suggest simply sticking to one variable at a time, and identifying them for each spectrum.


 * That said, the most meaningful variable would surround locus of power -- with control over economic power and property being the most clear and measurable benchmark. So, we should ask: Does such power reside in the people or in the government? Starting with 0% power in the people and 100% in government, the farthest imaginable position on the left would mark the absolute totalitarianism of a collectivized mankind under inescapable rule -- the Borg of Star Trek. At the other extreme would be the anarchy of the animal kingdom. All forms of government would fall between, with fascism clearly landing somewhere between our modern conceptions of left and right wing politics. Perhaps this is why Mussolini called it the "third way."


 * Using this kind of objective standard, I see no justification for placing fascism anywhere near the anarchy of the animal kingdom. Instead, it appears that all historic attempts to place it on the right, however established by tradition, lack objective basis. It may well be that Fascism arises from the left/center (which would explain its popularity when it arrives) and all established dogma to the contrary is simply an attempt to obfuscate the numerical reality of a very demonstrable measuring stick.--Arationalguy (talk) 21:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Facsism was starkly anti-communist. Because people tend to think in "black and white" terms they assume that Fascist ideology must therefore be diametrically opposed to communism and thus right wing. So what is facsism actually? An amalgamation of left and right. Unlike Centrism that seeks compromise, Facsism picks one or the other. 173.176.59.45 (talk) 23:24, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

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)

The whole premise is POV from the libertarian perspective not general political spectrum. 96.31.177.52 (talk) 05:49, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * If by "the whole premise" you mean the premise that one dimension is not enough to describe the range of political opinion, it seems to me you concede it by referring to a well-defined position off the "general political spectrum". —Tamfang (talk) 06:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Neutrality
How is this chart, a libertarian invention an unbiased political spectrum example? Have to question the integrity of those putting this up. The Nolan chart is a libertarian invention, used as a propaganda technique. 96.31.177.52 (talk) 05:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, the Nolan chart is used as a propaganda tool; if the article doesn't mention that, it ought to. The World's Smallest Political Quiz probably is loaded (like many surveys!) to encourage a preferred answer, though it would be hard to say so in a neutral way.  So?  Does the use of a concept in propaganda invalidate the concept? —Tamfang (talk) 06:30, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "Does the use of a concept in propaganda invalidate the concept?" Of a general political spectrum page?  Yes I would say it does invalidate it.  There is no balance.  The page is pretty much slanted to one perspective over all, and does not take a neutral perspective.   So yes I question the page's neutrality as a whole, and think it should be flagged for that. 96.31.177.52 (talk) 00:33, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Is it your contention that any "spectrum" of more than one dimension is inherently libertarian propaganda, or would you be satisfied if the sections on Nolan and Pournelle (not that they have much in common!) were removed? — The Nolan chart ought to have at least a "See also" link; it is notable as the most widely known "spectrum" of more than one dimension, by far. —Tamfang (talk) 02:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * No, but when the "spectrum" are so lop sided and the article does not discuss the problems of that, then clearly there is an issue with neutrality. I have to wonder about the agenda of the person who featured Nolan as the first example, and I'm not sure if they've tried to keep out any criticism or objective criticism out.  Reading the above discussions, I suspect there has been that attempt.  96.31.177.52 (talk) 07:59, 19 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It is not for us to criticise. If reliable sources have coverage of criticism that is fine but we should not be imposing our own opinions.
 * This article is meant to give an overview of all the various different classification systems so we should focus on explaining and comparing them. Key notable criticisms can be included but detailed coverage belongs in the articles about the individual systems. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:34, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any development of the discussion here and nobody has said anything that demonstrates the article is biased to a particular point of view. I think the POV tag can be taken off. Not liking the Nolan Chart itself is not a reason to tag the article as POV. If anybody thinks that the coverage in the article is skewed then we need a clear explanation of what the objections are and, if possible, suggestions for a solution with sources to support any changed content. --DanielRigal (talk) 15:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Before the French Revolution
The German article Konstituante holds the interesting aside that it was *NOT* the National Constituent Assembly of the French Revolution that started the seating order of left-wing vs. right-wing, but that the NCA consciously chose to adopt that tradition from the House of Commons of Great Britain, where since the days of the House of Commons of England the Opposition had sat the to the Speaker's "left" and the Government had sat on the "right", which was due to the fact that the HoC was the very first parliament in history not gathering around a round table, but on the choir stalls of St Stephen's Chapel since 1547, with a left and right wing.

I'm opting for that this noteworthy British history of the political terms "left" and "right" before the French Revolution should be mentioned in this article, as well as in right-wing politics and left-wing politics. --2003:56:6D1B:C640:2C64:FAD7:7EF5:3A10 (talk) 03:07, 21 April 2015 (UTC)
 * It seems like trivia to me. It doesn't actually support your assertion that the French Revolution is the origin of left and right wing, since most of the meanings we now associate with it come from the sides in that particular division and not from simple "opposition" vs. "government"; it says that there were previous examples of parties using left-vs-right seating to show their positions and that the seating in the National Constituent Assembly reflected this, but it doesn't seem to dispute the fact that the National Constituent Assembly is what gave them their current meanings. --Aquillion (talk) 09:04, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Political spectrum chart
Political_spectrum includes File:Political_Spectrum2.png, but it's not clear why this particular chart merits inclusion in this article. What is it called? Why is it notable? I don't think it adds to the article, so I think it should be removed. Any thoughts, particularly on a more notable/informative replacement image? --Joel7687 (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The political spectrum is not an axis
Hi, I am new to wikepedia, so would like to say hi and ask for your assistance.

I am not new to the political spectrum and would like to help get this subject presented factually.

I noticed the first paragraph of the Political Spectrum article starts with an incorrect assertion. A spectrum is not an axis. Think about it. No spectrum is an axis. For example, the energy spectrum is not an axis. The thermal spectrum is not an axis. A spectrum is based simply on two opposing extremes; light and dark (with all shades of grey between), hot and cold, etc.

Any confusion or frustration you may be having describing the political spectrum comes from not having established the actual extremes of the spectrum. That's all. Once you do this, everything would fall into place.

Ask yourself this: What is the purpose of government in relation to the governed? There are two extreme answers to this: 1. Protect the rights and freedoms of all its citizens, or 2. Oppress all freewill, demand compliance and use the bulk of the population as slaves.

The dichotomy for the political spectrum is Freedom vs Enslavement. Freedom on the right, Enslavement on the left. Then, each political system of government,based on its relation to these two extremes, can be positioned on the spectrum, which would look like this: (right to left) republic, democracy, socialism, fascism and communism. There's your basic spectrum, with many shade of each system along the spectrum.

I would like to work with someone to create an whole new article on the political spectrum. I am not familiar with the editing format. But if I could work with someone who is fast and accurate we could get this done pretty fast. Newpoliticalspectrum (talk) 17:01, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You will not be able to create such an article. The basis of a Wikipedia article is reliable, published sources, not just strenuous argumentation. rspεεr (talk) 18:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Or rather, it could be created elsewhere but not here. —Tamfang (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I notice that your criticism begins with an irrelevant observation: the article does not equate "spectrum" with "axis".
 * Certainly the contrast between Freedom and Enslavement (as you put it) is an important one in describing political systems. It is not the only one.  Nor would everyone agree on the ranking of the systems you've mentioned along that axis.
 * A political spectrum is useful for classifying not only political systems but also policies within a system. For example, one may reasonably say that Apartheid and compulsory quota-based integration are both incompatible with liberty, but they are also opposed to each other, so where race relations are at issue any useful descriptive scheme must have (at least) one axis other than the one you mention. —Tamfang (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tamfang, Thank you for responding to my talk. Forgive any offence you may have felt in my communication. I'm a bit passionate about things being understandable.

I not sure how you can say my criticism was irrelevant when the article was changed to correct the point I made. Perhaps it was updated before you looked. I would guess you can find the history of edit. Here's the problem, until you get the political spectrum correctly stated it isn't useful for anything except confusing people. The existing article confuses. A description of a subject should not start by misdefining it or giving opinions about it. A person should be able to read it and say, "ah, that makes perfect sense. I understand that now." Once the simple, factual spectrum is stated You can get into all the complex angles of the spectrum you want to.

Look at it this way. Say you knew nothing about the spectrum. You've never really cared. Then one day you decided to look it up online. If you were to read this article, you would walk away confused. If that's your goal, its been achieved. But that's not your goal, right? The spectrum I wrote above is the basic political spectrum. From that, you can deduce all the possibilities you want. Newpoliticalspectrum (talk) 22:05, 19 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, I can click "View history". When was the article changed to respond to your criticism of July 15?  All the changes that I can see since June 24 are quibbles of grammar and the like.
 * If you believe that the present article misdefines its subject, asserts opinion as fact, or creates confusion, please say how. Perhaps you object to the description of the conventional left-right spectrum as opposing communism with fascism; I agree that the opposition is false (an error that most of the two-axis spectra try to remedy), but it would also be false to deny that the error is conventional.
 * Is it your view that a spectrum ought to classify political systems first and opinions/positions/policies second if at all? Even so, your list is far from complete enough to "deduce all the possibilities you want".  Where would I find feudalism or syndicalism, for example?
 * Your remarks could be read uncharitably as implying that a good article should, above all, avoid contradicting the prejudices of the typical reader. —Tamfang (talk) 00:07, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Newpoliticalspectrum, the current lead calls the political spectrum a model that places political positions upon one or more axes. Does that address your original concerns? When you said that a spectrum is based simply on two opposing extremes, did you mean only two extremes? That would mean any spectrum model could only have one axis. I have seen many two axes models, and even a few three axis models. I hope that I never have to witness any attempt to explain a four axes model, a physicist would probably think nothing of it, my poor brain would probably shutdown. --Abel (talk) 01:09, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Abel, yes. A spectrum is a spectrum,not a double axis. As an example, look at the spectrum of energy. And within that spectrum are many smaller spectra, such as light, But they all fit on the same spectrum. The political system is no different if viewed against a dichotomy of Freedom and Enslavement. All governments would fit on this spectrum as they relate to the amount of freedom that their citizens have. At the extreme right, such as in a republic, the individuals rights and freedoms do not come from government decree, but as inalienable rights. Government's purpose is to protect and guarantee these rights. That does not mean that a republic is a static. Their could be many variations of a republic, again, based on the level of freedom guaranteed for all under the law. One of the problems the US had when its republic came into being was slavery. How could anyone say they achieved a real republic when so many were slaves? Eventually, through war, this was resolved somewhat. Communism, Fascism, Socialism, Democracy, Republic. These are the basic conditions, the most well known political systems. This scale could be filled in with more and more minute differences between systems. But each of the above from right to left, reduces the freedoms of the individuals within the society. This is all documented in the book The Political Spectrum: Freedom vs. Enslavement. Newpoliticalspectrum (talk) 03:13, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * You're free to use whatever definitions you like in your book. You're not making any progress in stating your case that Wikipedia shouldn't use definitions accepted by other scholars.  The article already mentions scales similar to yours.  If you want everything else removed, it ain't gonna happen.  If you're not going to respond to any of my questions above, are we done here?
 * By the way, Spectrum (disambiguation) mentions several concepts that do not fit a linear metaphor. —Tamfang (talk) 06:44, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * People use phrases in ways that are not approved by dictionaries that eventually become part of the language forcing dictionaries to change over time? It is like language is an example of spontaneous order or something. Chaos I tell you, chaos. --Abel (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Language is a code used only by codebreakers (I forget who said that), so it's natural that we sometimes get it WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!, er, different. —Tamfang (talk) 19:15, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi Tamfang, perhaps we see language a little differently. I see it simply as a way of communicating ideas. I don't find it confusing at all. As you say, there are often various definitions behind a word. If one wishes to be understood, he can define the words he is using in a glossary. I love the ability of Wikipedia and ebooks to embed the definitions of uncommon words. It makes it easy to get your ideas understood. On a subject like the political spectrum where there are so many opinions and theories, it means there is something wrong with the basic premise, so the subject just becomes a complicated mess. Tell me, do you really feel like you fully understand the fundamentals of the political spectrum? I concluded the fundamentals of the subject had either been purposefully obscured or never discovered.

Know one needs to giver their opinions or argue over the spectrum of light waves, because the fundamentals of that form of energy have been discovered.

The path I took was to discover the fundamentals of the political spectrum and I did. I'm not giving my opinion, really.

There is an exact sequence of decay of political systems. This is a very abbreviated presentation: A Republic decays into a democracy. A democracy decays into socialism, the Right then rises up with one last ditch effort to keep from going into communism and a socialism decays into a Fascism. And with that, communism incites discontent in the "workers" and overthrows the fascists, then it is likely to sink into anarchy, as you saw in Russia.

You can see this exact sequence occurred recently in Greece. Socialism failed and they voted in the Nazi party. People around the world were baffled by this. So was I, until I looked again at this scale and it made perfect sense. They knew their country was heading toward communism and they have put their faith (though misguided) into the Nazis to stop the slide into communism.

When the fundamentals of this spectrum are understood, what also happens is you can now see a path back toward freedom and how one could bring about a resurgence back up toward a republic and keep it there. That is also covered in the book. The spectrum becomes useful. Just as it is for any other spectrum. Newpoliticalspectrum (talk) 03:09, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I am shocked – shocked! – that you didn't recognize the humor in our last comments.
 * I understand as much as I care to, both of your theory and of the subjects of the present article.
 * I don't agree that a diversity of theories means a flawed premise; it may mean a young science, or a competing set of equally valid standards. The political spectrum, whether yours or any of those in the article, is not a natural phenomenon like the electromagnetic spectrum; it is a metaphor used to impose a classification on a collection of phenomena. It is to be expected that numerous classificatory schemes, differing in emphasis and approach, compete for attention.
 * Your theory of history, however valid or compelling it may be, is not of interest here. This page is for matters related to the presentation or content of the corresponding article, which is a survey of attempts to describe the universe of political opinion using a small number of continuous variables. —Tamfang (talk) 04:55, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Tamfang, you should re-read what you just wrote. It is the worse indictment of close mindedness one could make. I'm just curious why you are even responding to this. I would have to conclude you consider yourself the expert on opinions about the political spectrum. Or perhaps you have an ulterior motive for making the subject too complex to understand. Do you even want anyone to understand this subject? You obviously are biased to your own conclusions that everyone's opinion matters, except perhaps the research data in my book, which you haven't even read.

The Political spectrum as it relate to Freedom and Enslavement of citizens of a country is vitally important to making politics more then just the circle jerk you are turning it into. You obviously are not the right man for the job here. Is there anyone else who has an interest in getting this article so it is understandable and useful to people? Newpoliticalspectrum (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * That describes an academic article explaining your version of how the political spectrum should be understood. Wikipedia is looking for a consensus explanation of what the phrase "political spectrum" currently means. You probably want Political Science Quarterly or Journal of Politics. --Abel (talk) 21:49, 22 July 2012 (UTC)


 * At least 373 people have touched this article. If you have a specific suggestion about how its (existing) coverage of the individualism-totalitarianism dimension can be improved, perhaps one of them – perhaps even I – will implement it.
 * By the way, a search for the title of the book you mentioned didn't lead me to the flood of critical acclaim that one would naturally expect, given how it reveals a key truth that everyone else had missed, but I did find a video. The author begins by saying that, less than a year ago, he got curious about the phrase "political spectrum"; assumed (without saying why) that the black-gray-white metaphor must be correct; did a web search for diagrams, didn't understand what he found (handy tip: it usually helps to read the accompanying text), and concluded that the people who made the diagrams must all be confused.  This does not impress me as the attitude of a diligent or broad-minded scholar.
 * Even if the book embodies the most important and original insight since Kepler's orbits, the field of the present article is broader than that of the book. What's narrow-minded about preferring to keep it that way? —Tamfang (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

You should actually read the book before you criticize it. What are you afraid of Tamfang? You remind me of the those from inquisition, protecting their sanctimonious belief while attacking other's who have the courage to actually look. I find it particularly ironic that Wikipedia was the first source I went to for data and rejected it as having any value at all. In a way, you could say your article inspired me to find look for real answers. So for that, I thank you. You need not bother responding to this, as I am not interested in any further communication, unless you have something useful to say. Perhaps someday we'll meet and have a good laugh over this. :-) I wish you the best. Newpoliticalspectrum (talk) 12:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Please forgive me for assuming that the book is as you describe it. —Tamfang (talk) 19:53, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Every so often I come back here and wonder whether that could have gone better. —Tamfang (talk) 00:29, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Do we need this paragraph?
In his book The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power, Jeff Sharlet calls the political spectrum more of a Möbius strip than a dial. As an example he cites US Sens. Mark Hatfield and Henry M. Jackson. Hatfield vocally opposed the Vietnam War but also opposed abortion rights. Jackson supported abortion rights but also supported the Vietnam War.

So, there were two senators who disagreed on two issues; what's interesting about that? To make sense of the passage, one needs to know that in U.S. party alignments support for one was traditionally associated with opposition to the other. I think it's best not to assume that every reader is acquainted with U.S. politics.

Even so, the passage amounts to: "Jeff Sharlet is another person who has noted that the traditional single political axis is inadequate." How notable is that?

There may be a place for this in the article, but Political-spectrum-based forecasts ain't it. I assume good faith but I'm cutting it. —Tamfang (talk) 07:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * As a reader outside of the USA I find the paragraph uninformative. I can't tell if it is legitimate content phrased in a way that I can't make sense of, or not. If there is something to be said here it should be put in more clear and general terms rather than rely on an example that only adds to my confusion as to what the point being made actually is. DanielRigal (talk) 12:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It would appear that Sharlet was so blindly wedded to the single-axis model that when he found a contradiction he panicked and picked the first exotic metaphor that came to mind, never mind that it makes no sense. —Tamfang (talk) 21:53, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Multi-dimensional political space
Is there a name for just putting every issue on its own axis, in a many-dimensional space? 71.167.64.206 (talk) 20:41, 4 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, self, it's called "The spatial theory of voting". Issue voting 71.167.58.227 (talk) 02:20, 7 September 2016 (UTC)