This page contains too many unsourced statements and needs to be improved. Political spectrum could use some help. Please research the article's assertions. Whatever is credible should be sourced, and what is not should be removed.

Oh no, they're talking about

Theory

Political spectrum Political party Government (forms of)

Practice

International relations Propaganda War

End of History Christian democracy Anarcho-capitalism

Political neuroscience Apartheid Apartheid in Malaysia

As usual

Appeasement Palmer United Party Political parties of Canada

Country sections

v -t -e

Political spectrums orpolitical echiquiers are heuristic representations of differentpoliticalideologies and how they relate to one another. It can function as a useful tool for understanding how different ideas, parties and people compare and differ but, like all heuristics, it is an over-simplification and one should be careful not tomistake the map for the territory.

The one-dimensional model[edit]

At its most basic, the political spectrum consists of a continuum from left to right, with varying shades of opinion in between. Usually, there are five political positions described in the one dimensional model:far-left,left-wing,centre,right-wing, andfar-right, with the occasional inclusion of "centre-left" and "centre-right" groups.

A common way of characterizing the left-right spectrum is that the left tends to supportequality while the right tends to support hierarchy, be itpolitically,socially oreconomically. Another common association is that the left tends to progress beyond the current status quo, while the right tends to preserve it. Historically, the origins of these associations came from theFrench Revolution, where those in the National Assembly who upheld revolutionary andegalitarian ideal sat on the left and those who supported themonarchy and thenobility sat on the right.^[1]

One way to place the ideologies in the political spectrum are as follows:

— — — — — — — —

Typically, leftist ideologies will be more critical of unregulatedcapitalism and its perceived issues regarding inequality and exploitation, seeking to heavily regulate it orabolish it altogether. Culturally, they tend to support variouscivil rights movements and measures to end social inequality and discrimination.^[2] The right, meanwhile, tends to view capitalism and traditional cultural roles and notions more positively, believing them to benatural, inevitable, or even beneficial.^[3]

Problems with a one-dimensional model[edit]

There are a number of problems with this model. One is that it flattens differences between a number of very different political schools of thought. For example, it groups together theStalinists and anarchists on the left despite the former advocating for a repressive one-partystate while the latter advocates for the abolition of all forms of rulership and subordination. Similarly, pro-capitalistlibertarians who believe in bodily autonomy and arepro-choice, pro-drug liberalization, skeptical of thepolice, andanti-war can find themselves forced to rub shoulders withanti-abortion, pro-War on Drugs, cop-lovingwar-hawks, which many of them resent. In other words, a single axis can often be unhelpful to actually determine the kinds of political positions one has.

The horseshoe theory.

Another problem is the similarities the two extremes can often have on the regular one-dimensional axis. For example, both fascism and Stalinism support anauthoritarian regimes which brutally suppresses its opposition. In response, thehorseshoe theory was formulated, which argued "the two extremes meet", with only the centre being the most distinct ideology between them all.^[4] However, this model ignores the differences whichdo exist between the different ideologies. In general, academic findings have disagreed with the horseshoe's conclusions.^[5][6][7][8] In other words, it only further exacerbates the issue of oversimplification inherently present in a one-dimensional spectrum by not only grouping the ideologies of the same extreme, but ofall the extremes. Additionally, it also ignores the similarities thecentrists have with the extremists, including cases where the centrists helped fascist and other far-right regimes in cases where the far-left was ardently opposed to them.^[9]

The two-dimensional models[edit]

The Nolan Chart

The Political Compass

Some contend that a full variety of opinions can be better represented by two-dimensional diagrams where the (economic) left-to-right spectrum is balanced with another (social) axis representing a varying level of restriction on civil and social freedoms, both of which can be either left and right-wing. Two examples of such a representation are thenolan chart and the political compass, where political opinions can be plotted anywhere in a square grid based on the two axes. However, the theoretical merit of a two-dimensional political compass is a separate issue from its actual implementation in practice. Given that the actual political compass website classifiesBernie Sanders as a centrist,^[10] its accuracy is questionable.

Two dimensional models like the political compass and the nolan chartare, however, a marked improvement on the one-dimensional model. At the very least, they are capable of distinguishing neo-Nazis from libertarians andDPRK supporters fromlibertarian socialists.

Problems with the two-dimensional models[edit]

While we can now make more satisfactory distinctions between liberals and libertarians, there are still ways in which these spectrums mislead us and misconstrue the nature of political difference.

Under these models, both anarchists and right wing libertarians are described as "libertarian" despite the fact that they have very different ideas about what that word means. Anarchists tend to support a more positive form of liberty that includes rights to things like food, medical care, education, and participation in decision making. For right-wing libertarians, their conception of liberty is more "negative" and is primarily a freedom from external interference. Right-wing libertarians typically do not believe that you have a right to food, medical care, education, or participation in decision making at your place of work. Yet despite these massive conflicts in their desired outcomes, intended policies, and contradictory understandings of what the word liberty entails, both the Nolan chart and the political compass understand both these movements as "libertarian"... which skips over a lot of important distinctions.

Another problem that should be considered is the way in which these models position "authoritarianism" as though it were a value that is actively endorsed. For Marxist Leninists (who typically score as authoritarians), quickly crushing the opposition is important to defeat the forces of reaction, who may bejust as or even more tyrannical. Anarchists (who typically score as libertarians) during theSpanish civil war also imprisoned political opponents, established labour camps, and engaged in terrorism and summary execution: actions which are often defended across much the same lines that they were necessary to prevent fascists from getting the upper-hand.^[11] In these cases, similar measures and methods are endorsed in practice, but because Marxist Leninists are typically more open about what theirrevolution will involve, they get classed as "authoritarian", whereas the anarchists don't. The difference being not so much in what each group values, but in what they are willing to admit.

It is also worth noting that terms like "economic freedom" could be considered politically weighted.^{[note 1]} Leftists might refer to it as "corporate authority" instead.

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

References[edit]

• Significantly problematic articles
• Politics
• Political terms
• Political philosophies
• Political theory

• Pages using DynamicPageList parser function
• Articles with unsourced statements