Charting Politics

[Syock]

There is constant discussion about left and right.  The two major political parties in the USA see themselves as one or the other one a single line.   When people talk about Libertarians they tend to be considered far right.  There are left Libertarians too however.  Obviously a single axis is insufficient to chart political thought.  

Up next is a 2D chart. I messed with the Nolan chart a bit today to see if I could find some way to place political parties where I think they end up.  I changed the scales on the side because it seemed to be stereotypical and short sighted.  This seemed like a more realistic scale to me.

Nolan:                                                           Modified:


You may notice I didn't put much on the edges.  I don't think anyone can reach an edge without at least consistent logical thought, even if they don't realize the problem with it.  I think it requires that to be able to recognize the fact that when you destroy one, you end up destroying the other.  Those on the edge seem to get that and perhaps don't mind.  

Anyway, I got to that point and realized that 2D wasn't enough.  You may have noticed I essentially tried to push a third axis on the 2D graph.  



A 3D graph is a little better, however we are back to the false statement that somehow left and right have meaningful differences on the freedoms they actually endorse.  

How do you all see this mess?  Where would you place the political parties on my chart, or others?   You probably noticed I put the standard use of the word anarchy (ancom/ansyn/ansoc) on the polar opposite of us.  I don't think that is misplaced.  I also think it is why things are incredibly hostile between them as well.  What is your opinion on that?

Where would you place the constitution party, religious right, or left equivalents?  I don't know enough about them to place them. 

[Erv Hill]

I admire the attempt and I think that the modified 2D is excellent. Where I think all of them have a challenge is that there are no reference points (it's purely subjective on an individual basis). From that standpoint, I think I would put some historical markers on the modified 2D. Using the presidential terms as the marker, I think here's how they would map out based on some historical reading that I have done;
1) George Washington probably 2 or 3 squares down from the top slightly to the right
2) Abraham Lincoln 3 squares below Washington maybe a couple to the left
3) Woodrow Wilson along the bottom edge of the centrist square
Etc., noting that throughout the history of the US of A, we end up with a zig-zag that continually moves down the 2D graph.
The other point of note is that there have been a couple of presidents who attempted to reverse the trend (Jackson, Cleveland) and the 20th century is completely below the bottom of the centrist square. People are finally starting to realize that there is little separation between the political parties because there is so little left-right separation at the authoritarian end.
The other observation (occurred to me as I wrote this) is that in the space of individual vs. The State, this should probably look more like a funnel. When you have true individual freedom, the horizontal axis is meaningless.

[Syock]

The other observation (occurred to me as I wrote this) is that in the space of individual vs. The State, this should probably look more like a funnel. When you have true individual freedom, the horizontal axis is meaningless.

I agree the horizontal axis loses meaning at true individual freedom.  I think the diamond pattern actually pulls that off as there is no horizontal axis at that point on the graph.  The same effect occurs at the bottom of the graph.  

The problem I am having is the horizontal axis seems meaningless to me at all times.  There is certainly a perceived difference between left and right for those in the groups.  That is why I left it in as distinct sides.  However, those differences are arbitrary to me.  The difference of means and motivations for the stances keeps them well away from the libertarian area.  They have such a crazy variety of stances that really don't match the standard nolan x/y of econ and social freedom.  To make it even worse, the track record while in office is practically identical.  Which lead me to show a convergence in the lower end of the graph where government gets more say than the population majority.  

I am not sure how to represent the horizontal axis in a meaningful way.  Unfortunately the odd perceptions people have as left and right is probably the only way to even show it.  

I have been thinking that perhaps a triangle would be the right solution.  Then I could just fold the left onto the right and call it a day. 

Where I think all of them have a challenge is that there are no reference points (it's purely subjective on an individual basis). From that standpoint, I think I would put some historical markers on the modified 2D. Using the presidential terms as the marker, I think here's how they would map out based on some historical reading that I have done;
1) George Washington probably 2 or 3 squares down from the top slightly to the right
2) Abraham Lincoln 3 squares below Washington maybe a couple to the left
3) Woodrow Wilson along the bottom edge of the centrist square
Etc., noting that throughout the history of the US of A, we end up with a zig-zag that continually moves down the 2D graph.

I would be afraid to use presidents on the graph.   Many people have very different perceptions of them and history.  Personally I would put Lincoln and many others solidly in the Authoritarian end.  That might mean more people than I care to imagine would be there as well.

I admire the attempt and I think that the modified 2D is excellent.

Thank you, and thanks for responding.

[JustSayNoToStatism]

I would love to watch the reactions of ancoms when they see the circle A in the Authoritarian camp.

[Syock]

I would love to watch the reactions of ancoms when they see the circle A in the Authoritarian camp.

Hehehe   

I wish I could put it somewhere kinder, but it is what it is. 

[victim77]

1) George Washington probably 2 or 3 squares down from the top slightly to the right

Washington was historically authoritarian and was a huge federalist. He solidified federal rule when Pennsylvania tried to rebel.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion

2) Abraham Lincoln 3 squares below Washington maybe a couple to the left

Other than the painfully obvious reasons why he should be on the bottom, and ignoring the 450,000 American casualties he created, he also suppressed free speech and imprisoned political adversaries 
http://www.lewrockwell.com/2010/11/thomas-dilorenzo/cynical-and-hypocritical-abe/
Read:http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0006BMC1I?ie=UTF8&tag=lewrockwell&linkCode=xm2&camp=1789&creativeASIN=B0006BMC1I

3) Woodrow Wilson along the bottom edge of the centrist square

Open supporter of KKK, wartime facsist, created military industrial complex https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Industries_Board

[Erv Hill]

Nice feedback on my presidential references. Points well taken. The implication would be, and I don't necessarily disagree, that the US Government has always resided below the bottom edge of the centrist square. The residual challenge would be how to put the chart, in any of its configurations, into historical perspective for the average brainwashed product of the public education system.

I think that's the real challenge with this type of graphic, providing an anchor point. Most people I run across view the top edge of the authoritarian zone as freedom...

[Syock]

Perhaps the solution is to place markers for policies, both current and historical, and note on them which presidents enacted and continued them (and how).  

Renaming the sides and scale might help the situation.  A majority rule can certainly lead to authoritarian policy after all.