More than Left or Right. The Complexities of Liberal and Conservative Politics
"Why don't Liberals get it?". We've all seen statements like this (or often worse) on TV and the Internet. The same has been said about Conservatives. It paints all 'Liberals' or 'Conservatives' in the same swath and unifies the group to a point where there is no free thought from any individual. This generalization is made to simplify a complex issue by making the concept easier to identify what the the individual is and what the 'others' aren't. When pressed, however, the individual will often state that they are a Centrist with either left or right leanings - it is everyone else who is so extreme.
This simplistic view of two - and only two - America's is leading to an entrenchment in politics where neither side knows how to compromise because they don't understand what views they share with one another.
Thinking about the current state of affairs more deeply, you might hypothesize that individual political views land on a spectrum with centrists and extremists on either side.
However, this still doesn't tell the whole story. Many Americans are so fed up with both parties that they look for other groups that appeal to their interests. Parties like Libertarians or the Green Party are fringe groups that don't necessarily fall on to the two dimensional spectrum. Therefore, we need to come up with a better model that shows where all Americans fall in the political landscape.
The Political Landscape Wheel is a more accurate representation of the volatility in American politics today. It not only incorporates all parties, but also identifies what 'establishment' politics stands for & identifies at what degree an individual might demand radical change. Imagine that every individual in America with his or her very unique political viewpoints lined up shoulder to shoulder along this wheel based on those unique views. Every individuals is just slightly more "left" or "right" than the two people standing directly beside them. Theoretically, infinite points of political preference are created on this wheel.
This model showcases the animosities that are plaguing the country; those that lay directly opposite (180 degrees) from where an individual lays will not share many political views with one another. That said, as you diverge away from 180 degrees the more likely you are to agree with a person politically. For instance, Globalist Democrats can likely find common ground with Globalist Republicans as well as Progressives but will wonder what planet the Alt-Right is from and brand them as Nazis or Racists. Conversely, Globalist Republicans have trouble understanding Progressives and often dismiss them as Socialist or Communist.
It should be noted that there was no 'Centrist' on this chart because frankly, it doesn't exist. A centrist in this respect would imply that the individual both agrees and disagrees with every policy proposed by all groups. You can't both be for international institutions (Globalist) and the absolute preservation of individual liberty (Libertarian). At some point you will have a preference and lean towards a point on the circle. Also, everyone is a Centrist in their own minds eye.
Lets begin to explore the traits that make up each block. These depictions are meant to be generalizations because, similarly to there being no true centrist, there are no true Democrats or Republicans; every individual has a certain degree of sway towards another block. Zooming in to a block down to the individual level, for instance, it would be tough to find and draw the line between Globalist Democrat and Progressive Democrat (or Democrat Progressive and Libertarian Progressive, etc... etc..).
Globalists:
The best way to characterize a block is to imagine a world where everyone had the same views and therefore governed the country that way.
Globalists blend strong institutions and the preservation of the liberal economic order. Meaning, that they prefer government that enables people and corporations to trade and prosper globally. They want open borders for trade and the free movement of people, and ideally a global federal super state.
Democrats:
Democrats prefer strong global and national institutions but don't want a global federal super state. They believe that good governance is for institution's to provide and defend the common equity of its citizens and therefore use government mechanisms to do so.
Republicans:
Republicans prefer strong global and national institutions but don't want a global federal super state. They believe that good governance inherently comes from the individual and prefer that institutions defend equality.
A note about the distinction between common equity and equality: Equity, like ownership, means that as citizens you have "bought in" to society and therefore (for the lack of a better term) "owed" access to all the institutions and opportunities within a society. Equality is similar, but instead of individuals being seen as shareholders, citizens are preordained with rights, and it is from those rights come prosperity and opportunity. Democrats will use institutions to promote common equity, whereas Republicans view individual equality as the bedrock of institutions; Active vs. Passive Governance. Republicans strive for equality but are often blind to the institutional and human behaviors holding back groups of people. Democrats strive for common equity but are often blind to the pitfalls of complex bureaucracy and resentment that arises as some institutions are established to break other institutions or human behavior. This subtle distinction between common equity and equality is the driving force behind the divisions in America.
Progressives:
Progressives strive for common equity among individuals but believe that the current establishment doesn't go far enough and/or is actively keeping people form their common equity. This group is preoccupied with domestic issues to think internationally, but when they do they prefer institutions that match their values and prefer economic protectionism and open borders.
Alt-Right:
The Alt-Right is nationalist at its core. This nationalism drives the Alt-Right towards 'equality', but equality for those like them. Conforming to how society (or the nation) operates is the purpose of governance. Taken to its most extreme, The Alt-Right becomes motivated by race and/or Fascism. This group is preoccupied with domestic issues to think internationally, but when they do, they prefer institutions that match their values and prefer economic protectionism and closed borders.
Libertarians:
Pure Libertarians believe that there is no social contract between an individual and society. Government, in their view, is just a form of control. A society run by Pure Libertarians is absolute anarchy where the individual is responsible for their own safety. Constant fear dominates daily life.
The Convergence between Progressives and the Alt-Right into Libertarians may be the most controversial portion of this model. With that said, if you were to survey Progressives on what policies should be enacted, for instance, to preserve American Industry, they would say the same protectionist policies. Also, both the Alt-Right and Progressives share a similar liberal drug policy where legalization and a repeal of laws on the books are embraced. Progressives leaning towards Libertarianism would most likely subscribe to Kropotkin Anarchism.
Overall this is a simplified model to describe the complexities in society and exceptions will likely be found. This framework is also most likely very familiar to individuals in other countries. That said, it gives us a good framework to understand where divisions exist but also where we can find common ground.
Where are you on the wheel?