Get your phrases right in Politics - Don't be a dumb-ass!

Hi ATS.

I'd thought I'd write a quick summary up for our political phraseology illiterate friends on here. Why? Because I'm sick and tired of seeing moronic posts decrying the [INSERT POLITICAL IDEOLOGY HERE] without actually knowing what they are and what they stand for. Especially when the person doing the whinging about given political group apparently belongs to it; given their expressed views! The stupidity is profound, and requires education.

Here we go -

Please understand what the Political Spectrum actually is.



As this diagram shows, the traditional left / right argument is no longer enough to be able to describe different political ideologies. Rather, there is now significant evidence to show that the political argument is now whether or not to be 'Progressive' or 'Conservative' - with significant room for movement within both along cutural foci or economic foci - and of course the community vs individual arguments.

I'm not going to repeat the guide that is visible on the Wikipedia page, as you can read that for yourself.

But know this - being a leftie, does not mean you always want BIG GOVERNMENT, or that raising taxes will destroy your individual liberty because it's spent on something for everyone's benefit. Definitely not.

Conversely, being a rightie doesn't mean that you're automatically a fascist pig that wants to kill every Muslim in sight, and leave every poor person to die in the gutter, whilst laughing at them and poking them with a cattle prod.

Most importantly, being a Liberal doesn't mean you are a LEFTIE that's gone soft! Liberals come from both right and left schools of thought, and they generally focus on the reduction of one persons power over another. Stop calling anyone who's NOT a god-squad nutter that is fighting abortion policy, a bloody Liberal!

For your viewing pleasure, I've put onto the political map where I think the main players are in terms of UK, and US political landscapes. If you disagree, you disagree - don't flame me for bruising your self-generated opinion of what you are, and where you think you deserve to be on the political map. Holding certain views, means that you land in a particular spot on the map - don't delude yourself into thinking otherwise.

Here's the US political landscape according to me -

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/de5ff5749658.png[/atsimg]

Here's the UK political landscape according to me -

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/69b50c18a9db.png[/atsimg]

Lets' discuss where we think the parties are on the maps (I'm not perfect in my assessments), and also laugh at the maddening examples of ATS users that get it so badly wrong - no names please, just comic examples.

The Revenant.

Social Liberalism and Social Democracy needs to be moved a little more down and left, imho.

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Social Liberalism and Social Democracy needs to be moved a little more down and left, imho.

Hey Sky.

Fancy elaborating on that? I think Anarchy is too close to all of them to be honest.... and I think it should be on the right hand as anarchy is pure self-interest.

Rev.

reply to post by The Revenant


Don't label me as none, It is those labels that get us stuck and get us frozen culturally in time.

It is those labels that is stopping people from finding new ideas, locking people in that box zzzz sorry, I will not be locked in that box, I'll explore.

Originally posted by The Revenant

Fancy elaborating on that? I think Anarchy is too close to all of them to be honest.... and I think it should be on the right hand as anarchy is pure self-interest.

My understanding of the 4-D map is that liberalism is on the left side and social liberalism just a little closer to the middle or the bottom. The upper parts are pretty much empty because we dont really practice any of those systems. Earth is mainly Authoritarian Left or Authoritarian Right. The upper spaces are Anarchism at the very top Left and Libertarianism Top-Right.

But thats only my impression.

...i've never understood those silly labels... even took poly-sci in college (back in the stone age, lol) - was the biggest load of double-talking twisted-tongue bs i had ever heard (other than christianity's hooey)...

...conservative should mean a modest approach in all things, not wasteful, not obnoxious, not violent, not pushy, not gawdy, not greedy - but - it means the opposite here in the good ol usofa...

...ie: authoritarian / conservative... what the hell is conservative about being a control freak?... makes no sense at all, never has...

...call me a dumb-ass, i dont care - been called a lot worse and some of it was even true, lol...

reply to post by Skyfloating


Interesting points.

I think there are more depths of liberalism to be explored, and I personally think that more liberalism is practiced than many would believe. I don't believe that authoritarianism is the final evolution of our society either - ATS itself is anathema to this, as are many other things.

I don't know. It's a tough subject - but it seems very few people care, judging by the lack of responses this thread has had. Most are content to whine about politics that they know nothing about, nor understand in the slightest. ATS needs to deny its' political ignorance as a matter or urgency - especially when the media is in rhetoric spinning overdrive, brandishing political group labels like they're the next fashion trend....

The Revenant.

I like others are none of the above.

I am just me, and on any given day and topic i may totally differ from the pigeon holing that sites and people want to put on you.

Originally posted by andy1033
I like others are none of the above.

I am just me, and on any given day and topic i may totally differ from the pigeon holing that sites and people want to put on you.

It's good to be an individual Andy - but try as you might, you can't escape the fact that when weighed, your opinions on matters great and small will deliver you into a 'pigeon-hole' as you put it.

There's no escaping politics, and the political spectrum.

"Turn on to politics, before politics turns on you!"

Rev.

It is pointless to castigate people for not using labels in the manner you would have them do so. Particularly those who reside in the United States, a nation that has gone from being fairly liberal in their politics, to adopting federalism, soon after witnessing the rise of the Democratic-Republicans, alternatively called the Republican-Democrats, eventually becoming Democrats, or Jacksonian Democrats, while the Federalists morphed into the Whigs, although given that the word Federalist had become a pejorative most Whig's denied it, pointing out they were Republicans. Eventually it came down to a two party system of Republicans and Democrats, and did so in spite of the Dire Warnings George Washington gave about political parties in his Farewell Address, he being the sole President who served that office without any party affiliation.

Throughout all of this the terms "liberal" and "conservative" have morphed quite a bit in the past two centuries, now to the point where several charts are produced with a multitude of hyphenated labels to describe peoples political ideology.

Frankly, if there has to be labels, in my humble opinion, I think it can be simplified quite a bit, and reduced down to collectivists, and individualists. These two ideologies mark the great divide between people, at least in the United States, and I suspect the world over. If freedom is at all going to be the gauge by which we measure politics, then it certainly comes down to collectivists and individualists. Whether a collectivist leans right or left, or whether an individualist leans right or left is less important than whether they are collectivists or individualists.

In terms of freedom, the individualist will insist that freedom is defined by the unalienable rights that are cherished by that society, and the collectivist tends to define freedom as a democratic system of voting government leaders, and will tend to argue that rights are not unalienable but are legal grants given by the existing government. The collectivist will place society above the individual, and the individualist will argue that society has no meaning without individuals. The collectivist will argue in favor of social contracts, and the individualist will argue in favor of the right to contract with whomever one sees fit, dismissing social contracts as illegitimate forms of contract because they do not conform to the law of contracts.

As is the case with any attempt to label people, even the simplification of collectivist and individualist can be easily blurred, as many people tend to hew fairly close to a center. Thus, any given individualist can see value in certain social programs implemented by the government, and therefore justified in taxation, which becomes a sort of social contract, and any given collectivist can see value in individual rights and will expect government to protect these rights.

However, the divide between collectivist and individualist seems to be widening, and in terms of numbers, the collectivists seem to have a distinct edge, as there is no greater minority than the individual. Also, individualists tend to adhere to their own ideals and care less for party affiliation, and allegiances that might crimp their style, so there can be a number of individualists but they are a disparate bunch who rarely unite as one unified group, since such an act would be antithetical to their beliefs. This gives the collectivist an advantage, as part of the collectivist mentality is that each individual owes allegiance to the group, and must agree to accept the rules and regulations of that group. For the collectivist, unity is a large part of that ideology. For the individualist, being left alone to govern themselves is a large part of that ideology.

I wholeheartedly agree with JPZ.
I might add only this.
Liberal, conservative, left, right...they really don't mean anything anymore, if they ever did.
To mean something, the meanings have to be agreed upon by all parties. Like labeling a musical note, or a color.
The words are tossed around by "respected" journalists, politicians, and political analysts without any consensus on what the terms mean.
So, of course people here on ATS will "get it wrong", what is right?
Practically every government in existence is on the left or far left, control freak collectivists. If they didn't start out that way, they always end up that way.
The republic we had in the U.S. briefly was situated on the right, all alone in the world. Not so anymore of course.
So, in reality, you are categorizing all of the collectivists, claiming some are "on the right".
If you insist upon a "four dimensional" argument, then the collectivists would be statists, authoritarians with an agenda that pundits label "left" or "right", liberal or conservative, relative only to each other.
That is how I see it.

reply to post by The Revenant


I would put corporatism just to the right of Republicanism. It is essentially a form of advanced capitalism. much as I dislike the term corporatism, it is gaining some credence in some right-wing apologistic circles. Corporatism is not a political movement or a party per se but it is a politcal theory nontheless.

Originally posted by The Revenant
but it seems very few people care, judging by the lack of responses this thread has had.

Maybe because people don't want to read a thread with the word "dumb-ass" right in the title??
Come on,man- you're better than that....
I'm surprised the Mods haven't made you change it.....

reply to post by Skippy1138


I have to say I honestly wondered about what the mods would say. Perhaps given the current climate it may be better to Mmend it if possible. I don't want this importat thread to be destroyed. That would only slide us further into ignorance.

Just a thought

reply to post by The Revenant


From an outsider it's pretty hard to label as you do..

As here in Australia, what a party denotes they stand for during an election campaign is not the same as their actions display if the win office..

So where do their beliefs lie, in their promises to gain votes or their actions once in power??

Originally posted by The Revenant

Originally posted by Skyfloating
Social Liberalism and Social Democracy needs to be moved a little more down and left, imho.

Hey Sky.

Fancy elaborating on that? I think Anarchy is too close to all of them to be honest.... and I think it should be on the right hand as anarchy is pure self-interest.

Rev.

edit on 31-10-2010 by The Revenant because: adding the anarchy bit.

I totally agree that anarchy is pure self interest and is right leaning.

reply to post by The Revenant
I have never placed myself into any of these catagories ,as I have issues with all of them.I both agree and disagree with most of them,so my question would be where does someone like me belong?

reply to post by backinblack


What political ideology have they adopted? Is a good question. I would contend that Australia has parties that are on the right/ left axis. Most of them are social democrats and should therefore be placed in the exact centre of the diagrams.

Originally posted by tiger5
reply to post by backinblack

 

What political ideology have they adopted? Is a good question. I would contend that Australia has parties that are on the right/ left axis. Most of them are social democrats and should therefore be placed in the exact centre of the diagrams.

Truth is, when the other party wins, NOTHING seems to change..
The two parties share almost identical views though they don't like to admit that

lol, you lost my vote fascism is the joining of corporate and the government and if you have not been paying attention it has been happening since 1913, with both dems and reps, you sound like you just took your first poli sci 101 class yes? keep digging you have lots too learn
no star, no flag, A typical rhetoric from a text book