A Commenter asks: Are libertarians left or right? You seem to be categorizing people based just on their economic views. Some Randroids might be left-libertarians; would they still be conservative?
Market libertarians are on the right. They tend to deny this -- but that's either because they're being evil or stupid (or both). The declaration of "market" outcomes as non-coercive by fiat always benefits incumbent interests who go on coercively to control majorities and yet retroactively describe this control as liberty. The "paradox" that some are noting lately that the so-called free marketeers who make a cottage industry and personal lifestyle out of endlessly and loudly "hating government" seem nevertheless to love with the love of gluttons contemplating a buffet the police and the militaries who keep the workers in line, really only looks "parodoxical" to those who haven't looked or thought about so-called market "libertarian" views very closely. As for the libertarian socialists, they're are on the left if they're democratic socialists (almost all of them are) but not if they're not. Simple.
Now let me take a moment to say something more. Forgive me if this feels like it's coming out of left field (as it were), but... The so-called "Political Compass" is bullshit, in my opinion. I mention this because it seems to me the question I responded to in the last paragraph there originates either directly from awareness of the so-called Political Compass, or obliquely so through acquaintance with the many discussions that take its mistaken assumptions as their point of departure.
By the way, I sometimes think I am all alone in the whole online world in holding the opinion that The Political Compass is bunk. Somebody, tell me I'm wrong.
It looks to me like the political axis that matters has the social democracy and democratic socialism that define The Left on one end and then has the anti-democratic Royalism and elite incumbency that defines The Right on the other end.
Needless to say, there are a number of definitive antagonisms within both Left and Right in each historical epoch. But there are not in my view two key and separable axes, "economic organization" and "protection of individual liberties" (let alone three, for those who think fetal rights, environmental problems, or emerging technologies "rewrite politics" in some more fundamental way than history's usual agonistic rough-and-tumble does or introduce yet another especially "definitive" axis into the picture, at least in a way that can be expected to hold up over generational timescales and widespread geographies). There is a democratizing politics that values collaboration peer-to-peer, and then there is an anti-democratizing politics that values control in the hands of incumbent interests.
That looks like one axis to me. Left versus Right.
Democracy, anti-democracy -- collaboration, control -- libertarianism, authoritarianism -- fairness, excellence -- openness, incumbency... whatever their transformations, stresses, and openings these are essentially structural expressions of the same basic antagonism. Yes, yes, yes, there are many complexities, many priorities, many vicisstitudes always in play, and these details will actually determine the substance of the left-right antagonism at hand, but I think the question here is the utility of an analytic schema and it looks to me that one left/right axis is better than two- or three-axis schemas that lose track of the key distinction foregrounded in a one axis left-right understanding, and saying otherwise usually just expresses confusion or abets fraud in my view. Now, if someone wants to propose an analytic with five or more axes (the first sentence of this paragraph names my axes in a more complex analytic) maybe that would be more predictively powerful, but there are questions of tradeoffs between elegance and rigor whenever one proposes a general model in the first place.
The fact is I do think that one of the definitive antagonisms that will define the left in every generation will be its own institutional, practical, and aspirational resolution of the ineradicable tension between the democratic values of equity and diversity. But what is key to me is that these are never structurally separable from one another in the lived experience of left politics. They constitute a discursive circuit, a constitutive antagonism, a dialectic normative whole, if you know what I mean... with one normative-formation always responding to the other, complementing the other, nudging the interminable dynamism of democracy into a provisional reflective equilibrium by virtue of the counter weight of the other. The inaugural gesture of the Political Compass that would treat these values as separable (I believe the "economic axis" shorthands the complexities of maintaining equity, and I believe the "liberty/authority axis" shorthands the complexities of coping with diversity) always produces a deeply deranging perspective on the politics of the actually always essentially democratizing left, making it impossible to name clearly the dynamic of equity/diversity that actually founds and collectively reproduces the left in its actual being from moment to moment and from generation to generation, but also makes it inevitable that anti-democratic politics will be misconstrued as closer to the left than they really are to the cost of democracy and to the benefit of incumbency.
Yes, I really do think this. Even my friends think I am an old-fashioned stick in the mud for holding this view. They're all wrong.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
Would there be a way to determine someone's place on this axis only by surveys? It isn't necessarily a problem if there isn't, but it would make the scale more tangible.
The problem with any political scale is that people who hold extreme views on both sides are hard to classify. If a person generally wants collaboration, openness, fairness and sometimes democracy, but is strongly against democracy, openness and maybe libertarianism in specific circumstances (government, for example), how would you classify them? (That describes me.)
(Those views aren't contradictory if the person thinks that some exceptions make some of the things on the list very bad ideas.)
If a person generally wants collaboration, openness, fairness and sometimes democracy, but is strongly against democracy, openness and maybe libertarianism in specific circumstances (government, for example), how would you classify them?
As confused.
I'll explain my political views in more detail:
I used to be a (market) libertarian. I might have been a left-libertarian. On the political compass, I might have been -7 (social) and +4 (economic). (Yes, the political compass misses the point, but it is good for telling people your political views.)
Then I became a progressive (-7 social and -4 economic). All my current progressive opinions are ones that haven't been replaced (I don't think I'll replace many.)
Taking the test now, I get:
Economic Left/Right: -0.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.82
The economic views are from MM. I didn't expect to be that libertarian, but there weren't many questions about government that were directly relevant for me.
I'll dump all of my questions in the next comment.
If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.
Strongly Agree
I'd always support my country, whether it was right or wrong.
Strongly Disagree
No one chooses his or her country of birth, so it's foolish to be proud of it.
Strongly Agree
Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races.
Disagree
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
Strongly Disagree
Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified.
Agree
There is now a worrying fusion of information and entertainment.
Disagree
People are ultimately divided more by class than by nationality.
Agree
Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment.
Strongly Disagree
Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation.
Agree
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a fundamentally good idea.
Strongly Disagree
It's a sad reflection on our society that something as basic as drinking water is now a bottled, branded consumer product.
Strongly Disagree
Land shouldn't be a commodity to be bought and sold.
Strongly Disagree
It is regrettable that many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society.
Agree
Protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade.
Strongly Disagree
The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders.
Strongly Agree
The rich are too highly taxed.
Strongly Disagree
Those with the ability to pay should have the right to higher standards of medical care.
Strongly Agree
Governments should penalise businesses that mislead the public.
Agree
A genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies.
Strongly Agree
The freer the market, the freer the people.
Agree
Abortion, when the woman's life is not threatened, should always be illegal.
Strongly Disagree
All authority should be questioned.
Strongly Agree
An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
Strongly Disagree
Taxpayers should not be expected to prop up any theatres or museums that cannot survive on a commercial basis.
Disagree
Schools should not make classroom attendance compulsory.
Disagree
All people have their rights, but it is better for all of us that different sorts of people should keep to their own kind.
Disagree
Good parents sometimes have to spank their children.
Strongly Disagree
It's natural for children to keep some secrets from their parents.
Strongly Agree
Marijuana should be legalised.
Strongly Agree
The prime function of schooling should be to equip the future generation to find jobs.
Agree
People with serious inheritable disabilities should not be allowed to reproduce.
Disagree
The most important thing for children to learn is to accept discipline.
Strongly Disagree
There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures.
Agree
Those who are able to work, and refuse the opportunity, should not expect society's support.
Strongly Agree
When you are troubled, it's better not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things.
Strongly Disagree
First-generation immigrants can never be fully integrated within their new country.
Strongly Agree
What's good for the most successful corporations is always, ultimately, good for all of us.
Strongly Disagree
No broadcasting institution, however independent its content, should receive public funding.
Disagree
Our civil liberties are being excessively curbed in the name of counter-terrorism.
Strongly Agree
A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.
Strongly Agree
Although the electronic age makes official surveillance easier, only wrongdoers need to be worried.
Disagree
The death penalty should be an option for the most serious crimes.
Agree
In a civilised society, one must always have people above to be obeyed and people below to be commanded.
Agree
Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all.
Strongly Disagree
In criminal justice, punishment should be more important than rehabilitation.
Strongly Disagree
It is a waste of time to try to rehabilitate some criminals.
Agree
The businessperson and the manufacturer are more important than the writer and the artist.
Agree
Mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to be homemakers.
Strongly Disagree
Multinational companies are unethically exploiting the plant genetic resources of developing countries.
Strongly Disagree
Making peace with the establishment is an important aspect of maturity.
Strongly Disagree
Astrology accurately explains many things.
Strongly Disagree
You cannot be moral without being religious.
Strongly Disagree
Charity is better than social security as a means of helping the genuinely disadvantaged.
Disagree
Some people are naturally unlucky.
Strongly Disagree
It is important that my child's school instills religious values.
Strongly Disagree
Sex outside marriage is usually immoral.
Strongly Disagree
A same sex couple in a stable, loving relationship, should not be excluded from the possibility of child adoption.
Strongly Agree
Pornography, depicting consenting adults, should be legal for the adult population.
Strongly Agree
What goes on in a private bedroom between consenting adults is no business of the state.
Strongly Agree
No one can feel naturally homosexual.
Strongly Disagree
It's fine for society to be open about sex, but these days it's going too far.
Strongly Disagree
Thanks for sharing, I guess.
I somewhat agree with you that there's really only two sides that matter, but where I've found the Compass-style axes useful is in distinguishing between, say, state socialism and libertarian socialism. I'm not talking Stalin's USSR, which was clearly not socialist in any meaningful sense, but let's say Socialist Party USA makes a resurgence and wins the government -- that would clearly be a Leftist government, but one very different from Bookchin's libertarian municipalism or an Albert/Shalom-style parpolity. Does that just mean the direct democracy is simply further left than the representative?
On the other hand, if the debate is really between the socialists and the anarchists, I guess the Left has already won...
Dale wrote:
> Market libertarians are on the right. They tend to deny this -- but
> that's either because they're being evil or stupid (or both).
From George Lakoff,
_Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think_,
Chapter 17, "Varieties of Liberals and Conservatives",
pp. 293-296
"Libertarians provide a very interesting challenge to the study
of variations on a central model. Libertarians see themselves
as forming a separate political category, neither liberal nor
conservative, but something unto itself. An analysis in terms
of variations on central models suggests that their view of
themselves is not entirely accurate.
Suppose we start by looking at the central conservative model.
Consider a variant on that model that is pragmatic in the
extreme, that is, think of a conservative who sees the pursuit
of self-interest as the principal end, and conservative morality
(self-discipline, self-reliance, etc.) as a means to that
end. Someone who is extremely pragmatic will be willing to
sacrifice aspects of conservative morality if it interferes
with the pursuit of self-interest. Now imagine such a pragmatic
conservative having the moral focus: noninterference by the
government. So far as I can tell, this is what a 'libertarian'
is, namely, an extremely pragmatic conservative whose moral
focus is on noninterference by the government. In short, a
libertarian is two steps away from a mainline conservative.
Such a person will believe that free enterprise should be as
unrestricted as possible and that people should be self-disciplined
and self-reliant in order to pursue their self-interest.
He will be very much against social programs, taxation, government
support of education and the arts, government regulation, and
gun control. But the libertarian's moral focus on noninterference
by the government and his extreme support of self-interest will
make him a radical advocate of civil liberties. He will oppose
any governmental restrictions on free speech, pornography,
abortion, homosexuality, and so on. He will probably support
the rights of women, gays, and minorities to equal opportunity,
but be strongly against affirmative action on the grounds that
it gives individuals things they haven't individually earned.
He will most likely be pro-choice on abortion, but not believe
that the government should pay for abortions. And since he gives
priority to the pursuit of self-interest over the rest of the
conservative moral system, he will not have the moralism of
mainline conservatives; the seven deadly sins may not be sins
for him.
A good example would be drug addiction, which, to many
libertarians, would not in itself be immoral. Libertarians
commonly favor the decriminalization of drug use and sale
on the grounds of maximum noninterference by the government
and maximum pursuit of self-interest. They frequently
argue that government interference in the drug trade has
artificially driven up the price of drugs, brought
criminals into the drug market, and forced drug addicts to
turn to crime to support their habits. Decriminalization,
they argue, would allow honest business to pursue the drug
trade, bring in competition, lower prices enormously, not
force users to turn to crime, and not make it profitable
enough for major crime syndicates to bother with.
The libertarian's advocacy of civil liberties will bring him
into overlap with liberals on many positions. But the
source of that advocacy comes from a different place --
from a conservative model with minimally restricted pursuit
of self-interest and a moral focus on noninterference.
The advocacy within their ranks seems to tend toward
conservatism. There is, after all, a reason why the scholars
at the libertarian Oslo Institute seem largely to be writing
in support of conservative rather than liberal positions.
Nonetheless, there is no objective answer here. They are
far enough away to think of themselves as a separate
category and close enough for others to think of them as
conservatives."
I've found the Compass-style axes useful... in distinguishing between, say, state socialism and libertarian socialism. I'm not talking Stalin's USSR, which was clearly not socialist in any meaningful sense, but let's say Socialist Party USA makes a resurgence and wins the government -- that would clearly be a Leftist government, but one very different from Bookchin's libertarian municipalism or an Albert/Shalom-style parpolity. Does that just mean the direct democracy is simply further left than the representative?
I know just what you mean, but I think the Compass introduces false helpfulness if one is trying to untangle these issues.
It is interesting that you bracket the Stalin example, since it seems to me the Compass would indeed assign Stalin some leftist cred (as the right has also been saddling the democratic left with Stalin to justify their reactionary ambitions for years). You don't fall for that, but I think the insight that keeps you from falling for it is the same one that causes me to resist this structural disarticulation of equity from diversity as democratic/left values
in the first place.
You raise the issue of whether the Compass helps us sort out questions of how direct versus representative implementations of democratic ideals, but again I think it confuses the scene. It makes us too vulnerable to PR spin from notionally left Partisan Machines that functions primarily to support particular incumbent interests while appropriating the energy and legitimacy of the people more generally.
Such moves are not left, properly so-called, but right-wing (however they market themselves in their glossy brochures), not democratizing but anti-democratizing. The Compass takes away rather than giving us analytic resources for grasping just why this is, it seems to me, even though it isn't really that difficult to understand what is afoot.
On a somewhat different note, let me also say that I think the ideal of "directness" attributed to some blueprints for ideal democracy also confuses our understanding of the issues involved in judging actually existing democratic processes, aspirations, institutional implementations, and so on. I think directness, like perfect consensus, is never in fact arrived at and that probably all democracy is importantly susceptible to description as more representative than direct in the sense denigrated by advocates of directness.
This seems to me a particularly philosophical sort of problem, more than an actually political one at this level of abstractness though. In such cases I think it is often clarifying to denominate and reanimate the concept in question, change it from a noun into a verb: think in terms of an open ongoing collarboative process of democratization and anti-democratization eventuating in states of affairs in which more people have more of say in the public decisions that affect them and in which less people have less of such a say.
The institutional and normative experimental implementations of this process are -- and should be -- open, unpredictable, diverse. Democracy is not the actualization of an abstract eidos any one person can know in advance against which we measure actually existing systems, but an interminable project.
The push for more directness against the corruption into too much nonrepresentative representativeness in self-identified democracies seems to me to express that antagonism between equity and diversity that characterizes the lived dynamic of left I was talking about before -- and I think it is false to mistake a circuit as a distinction, or to propose that the right partakes equally as the left in either term that defines that dynamic antagonism. The right has its own dynamic, its own constitutive antagonisms. That is an issue that is not clarified by muddying its distinction from the left, as the Compass seems to me ultimately to do.
On the other hand, if the debate is really between the socialists and the anarchists, I guess the Left has already won...
Who won? You may be interested to know that I do not consider America's most famous anarchist Noam Chomsky to be an anarchist at all, for example, but a radical democrat (as am I), and I prefer the notion of democratizing the state to demolishing it. That's why I advocate p2p democratization/a2k commons/and basic income guarantees.
Also although I see why EOWright among others says advocacy of BIG makes one socialist, the truth is, I think it really just makes one a radical democrat.
I guess I think democracy beats anarchism and socialism.
The fact that in America I often like best the people who call themselves anarchists and socialists while feeling annoyed at many people who call themselves democrats while driving the kids to private school in their SUVs seems to me to be the result of general confusions reflected and probably exacerbated by analyses like the Political Compass.
Thanks for the good questions, I enjoyed thinking about them.
I have taken the test several times - I always score "libertarian left", close to the center of the lower left quarter.
I think many of the questions should be phrased better and some questions are not generally applicable, but I tend to accept the result. Libertarian because I believe in live-and-let-live, and left because I believe in social fairness and support and do not consider the free market as a magic wand. Of course this attitude is often rewarded with strong criticism from both sides.
I do think the two axis are independent, at least in the sense that the position on one is not a reliable predictor of the position on the other. If anything I think several other axis should be added.
But surely this is the very problem I was highlighting in my actual argument?
I don't agree that one can simultaneously not believe in fairness and yet claim to believe in "live and let live." What live and let live means in a world without fairness is some live at the expense of others. That is a straightforward right-wing anti-democratic attitude, an insight the Compass obscures very much to the benefit of the right.
The Compass is not so much demonstrating or responding to the "fact" that belief in one is not a predictor of belief in the other, in my view, rather, the Compass is functioning to drive a wedge between these beliefs to the cost of understanding either of them in a properly democratic way. It is confusing people into misunderstanding the connection of belief in one to belief in the other -- again, usually very much to the benefit of anti-democratic right-wing aspirations.
It is quite true to say the connection isn't a seamless or static one -- but as I said before it functions as a constitutive antagonism at the heart of the democratic end of the left-right axis.
The antagonism between equity and diversity (equity = what you are calling "economy" and diversity = what you are calling "live and let live") plays out in every democratic process, person, order... both of which are always valued in democratic politics, but always one or the other will be differently weighted in relation to the other.
This antagonism is different from the left-right difference which constitutes the single political axis that matters most in my view, the key fact obfuscated by the Compass. To deny or denigrate either equity or diversity is to step away from the left and toward the right. The Compass makes it easier to obscure this to the cost of clarity and sense and democratic politics.
As for adding other axes: As I already said above, I can indeed imagine models that track many more variables than the Compass does. I think the key rhetorical work of the Compass is to make it harder for us to grasp the key difference between left and right politics through the addition of an axis that drives a wedge into the heart of the left.
Models that introduced many more variables into the mix need not be introduced for such a nefarious purpose -- but simply to enrich analysis to make prediction more useful. But, again, as I said, the problem here is the usual tradeoff in modeling between what is useful about generality and what is useful about precision.
I think there are few things more powerful in political analysis than grasping that the very difference denied by the Compass, the difference between Left and Right, is a difference that makes a difference.
Post a Comment