Getting Beyond One-Dimensional Politics

Between the internet, smart phones, television and print media, we are a society who’s more informed than ever. But with little time and energy to spare, we often defer to others to sift through the facts and tell us what to think. 10-second sound bites and short news reports and articles arm us with just enough knowledge to be dangerous, despite what’s commonly just a one-dimensional understanding of the issue. You’re in the minority if you engage and attempt to see both sides of an issue. For instance, if you believe that capital punishment is murder, then it’s generous and judicious of you to try to understand why others advocate for it. And if you believe that abortion is murder, then it takes a lot of mercy to understand why some people believe it’s necessary and should remain legal. This kind of magnanimity can allow for productive dialogue and allows for a strong community in the midst of diverse views.

But the facts seldom run on a straight line, and there are usually more than two sides to every issue. This is where things get really interesting. Political positions are relative; It is the job of progressives to move the bar, and it’s up to conservatives to hold it steady; thus the tension. But there are no happy mediums. It doesn’t necessarily make you a moderate (or centrist) if you’re not on a particular extreme or if you have mixed feelings about some issues. I’d like to propose that we move beyond the basic political spectrum and think outside that line. If you haven’t familiarized yourself with the Nolan Chart, it’s a great place to start (chart A):

Many of us have a general idea of where we reside on a left/right spectrum. If you want to tax the rich, protect a women’s right to choose, provide more entitlements to the poor, spend more money on public services, increase regulations for the environment and big business, and reduce foreign aggression, then you’re probably a registered Democrat who’s going to vote for Obama. If you want to see all taxes reduced or flattened, you’re against abortion, think we need to cut public spending, reduce the size of government and regulation, free up the marketplace and project our military might, then you’re likely a Republican who’s going to vote…well, against Obama.

Since we have a two-party system, often we get stuck on the left/right continuum. But social freedoms and economic freedoms are two different animals, and having traditional values versus liberal ones doesn’t necessary translate into how powerful or intrusive you want government’s role to be in those arenas. Let’s look at the debate on homosexual marriage, for instance (chart B):

Those with traditional values are increasingly alarmed at what they view as licentious behavior in society, while others who have taken to the street are upset by the gap between the rich and the poor. Politicians are always happy to make promises and pass laws to right such wrongs. This is why the size and scope of government has been shifting the spectrum on another axis—towards statist control (populism, fascism, totalitarianism, or authoritarianism). It is nothing new for the political establishment on both sides of the aisle to protect and consolidate their power behind incumbents and those who tow their party line. But we’ve witnessed an unprecedented increase in government spending, which is nothing less than a massive power-grab (all in the name of necessity, of course). The more powerful the government gets—the more money they spend and more laws they pass and regulations they create—the more total their control becomes, resulting ultimately (at the extreme) in totalitarianism…and the death of freedom, plain and simple. We may live in a center-right nation on the horizontal axis, but that whole spectrum is sinking downward toward more government control.

A great example of government expansion and control (combined with liberal sensibilities) was illustrated in the recent passage of so-called “Obamacare”, which we can chart somewhere deep within the lower-left quadrant of chart C:

The opposite of this growing authoritarianism is libertarianism. And it’s no wonder, in light of our current drift away from it, that it’s gaining steam as a movement—coalescing, especially on the right, behind Ron Paul. But from a strictly conservative viewpoint, Paul has some pretty radical views about abolishing whole government agencies and radically diminishing our projected military power throughout the world. And raw libertarianism also advocates legalization of behaviors most Americans consider dangerous to society, such as prostitution and hard drugs…sometimes going so far as to look very anarchist. Is that the solution?

I’d argue that no extreme is either tenable or palatable. Neither the people in government nor people apart from any government are perfect, and thus the need for some balance of power. But this doesn’t mean surrendering to mere moderation or giving up your political power. You have a voice, these issues matter, and there are good reasons for being on one side or the other. So when the already frustratingly complicated political spectrum explodes into two dimensions, what’s a citizen to do?

First of all, decide what’s most important to you. Is a strong central government enforcing justice and making society better your priority (authoritarian), or is liberating a free people with government limited as a necessary evil (libertarian)? Do you mind telling a rich person to pay up and give more of their money to those who need it (liberal), or would you rather tell a homosexual that it’s wrong to marry the person they love (conservative)? It’s obviously much more complicated than that with a variety of factors and issues at stake, but at least try to frame your general values and priorities. You’ll then have a matrix through which to view any new issue or evaluate a candidate. This also may provide common ground with someone who you might view as a political adversary, as well as finding something to rock the boat with all of the homogenous friends of yours who vote the way you do. We want to avoid putting ourselves or others in a box, but sometimes it’s helpful to get a grasp of the context and where we fit in.

Note that this matrix actually can extend farther in every direction (Stalin & Marx would be off the chart, for instance), and for the sake of our reference I’ve honed in on what I consider to be the range of American politics. Here’s my estimate of the current state of our political system (center/leftward-drifting, and downward trending) in juxtaposition to the American electorate (center-right with ample appreciation of government provision, but trending recently toward freedom and leaner government). It also shows why, based on my perception and positions, I’m so often at odds with our president (chart D):

Sometimes it’s hard to settle on a position on every issue, so don’t feel like you have to. Sometimes it’s helpful to at least know what you don’t believe. But then once you know what you stand for, then take a stand. This can be frustrating if the majority doesn’t stand with you or if you don’t have a candidate that aligns with a lot of your views. I’m obviously a firm advocate of thinking and speaking critically in every appropriate forum. But when push comes to pull, I urge that you get out there and pull the lever for the candidate whom you believe is the best viable option to represent and lead. With our precarious economy, declining power in the world, crippling debt level, and the controversy surrounding expanding (yet threatened) entitlements and regulations, no election has been more consequential than the one facing us. And, as I believe we’ll see with any opponent that goes up against Obama in the months to come, never has the choice been so clear on the vast majority of issues…top to bottom and left to right.

To conclude, I’ve taken a stab at charting where the current candidates might fall—with myself included (chart E). All of these charts are my own biased assessments, but they’re no different than any tests that might attempt to pigeon-hole you (and most likely associate you with the candidate of their choice). The single point on the chart indicates where I think they are positioned by their actions and statements leading up to the campaign, while the larger oval shows where they’ve governed from in the past. Note that, though I’ve put Obama on one far extreme by himself, other Democrats could fill that gap between liberal and centrist and most candidates (Paul conspicuously excluded) are in the bottom two-thirds of the matrix due to their role in the continuing expansion of government spending and control to varying extents and in different areas (social and/or economic).

If you disagree, you’re welcome to create your own. American politics is not a spectator sport. I’d love to hear where you’d place yourself on the chart.

Advertisement