The myth of (LEFT)|------- (CENTER) --------|(RIGHT) American politics.

[Political Heretic]

America has many self-perpetuating myths about its politic, economy and culture. But I believe the most insidious is the myth that politics can be represented by a horizontal line between a Left Pole and a Right pole, with a tangible "Center."

(LEFT "FRINGE")||--------------------(CENTER)--------------------||(RIGHT "FRINGE")

This particular myth serves status quo interests resistant to social and economic justice extremely well. It implies, without any substantive justification, that the "center" is reasonable, but painting both Left and Right at polar extremes on a horizontal plane.

In American politics, "Center" represents the establishment wisdom, perpetuated by media and politicians alike, that our moderate system of a little conservatism here, a little neo-liberalism there, but only in balance and never upsetting our "norms" is rational, reasonable and responsible.

I think its time we were reminded that the above is a model. Models are not the same as reality - they are simplifications of complex reality to aid comprehension. Not all models are created equal.

This particular model is woefully inaccurate. But if we were to use this model, we could start making it look a little more accurate by demonstrating it like this:

(WORLD LEFT)||-----------------------------------(AMERICAN LEFT "FRINGE")---x-(CENTRISTS)-----||(RIGHT "FRINGE")

This is only slightly more accurate in the sense that it at least acknowledges that what is considered "Fringe Left" in American Politics is actually fairly close to "center" when considered on a global scale. The "x" by the way, is where the "Liberal" wing of the Democratic Party resides.

Still, this horizonal line still suggests that the "center" is a place between two pole extremes, this implying that the "center" is reasonable, and most accurate. Again, this is a model that serves status quo interests quite well. But does it accurately reflect the world in which we exist? What if we considered some alternative models?

^
|
|
(SOCIAL AND
ECONOMIC
JUSTICE - "LEFT")
|
|
|
|
|
("CENTER")
|
|
|
|
|
|
(FASCISM - "RIGHT")

There is absolutely no less reason to assume this political line model is any less appropriate than the horizontal line between poles. In this model, you can go only one way, from a fixed point a fascism on the hard right, to greater and greater social and economic justice.

The "Left" in this case, which stands for social equality, human rights (including rights to meaningful work, to shelter, to adequate food, to health care, to a living wage, to nondiscrimination, to peace, etc.) becomes representative of the agenda for which any decent ethically responsible human being ought to strive.

The "center" becomes not reasonable or responsible but rather weak, insufficient, capitulating - like collaborators with the enemy. It's no longer modeled as a "realistic" middle between two extremes. Now it simply represents a state of mediocrity, of failure to reach potential, of failure to thrive.

The way we model our political reality is a choice. But I ask you: why keep letting multi-billion dollar for-profit media or rich and over-privileged out of touch white men in that dominate politics constantly tell you what model to use? Especially when that model seems highly disconnected from human reality...

Just food for thought.

[democrank]

1. Today`s use of the term "leftist" is laughable.

The "center" has been move so far right that torture is now acceptable. In fact, politicians and media starlets can opening advocate for it. Think about it.

It`s not about principle any more, it`s about winning.

[AnOhioan]

3. Hence the support for a bill that is flawed

But it's a Democratic Bill....so we can ignore that it's crap. If this was a Republican bill, DU would be almost unanimous against it.

[Echo In Light]

6. Precisely. Besides, from what I've seen, the only ones complaining about the 'left'...

... are generally those who oppose what the term has come to represent in our time i.e. very liberal/progressive, anti-war, anti-corporate, critical of the two party ruse.

This is often why (I'm speculating based on the other stated views of such types) they're always quick to try to point out how 'far left/far right' are on equal footing. Well, yeah, within specific 20th century examples, yes. But again, definitely not now, re what 'left' implies, and pretty much has since thinkers like Herbert Marcuse and Chomsky and Zinn of the 1960s took on the moniker of the 'new left.'

[RC]

2. You have shown what I have been saying for years.

This country is so messed up and most of the population has no clue.

[HereSince1628]

4. The assumption that the population distributes as a normal curve

on such lines really makes me scratch my head.

There is no reason to believe the distribution is bell-shaped and has a single mode. Watching the talking heads on television I get the distinct feeling that the distribution is at least bi-modal.

[comtec]

5. Two not-so-small flaws

one, it's a ring not a line.
Fascism, and extreme communism (stalinism), do the same thing - totalitarianism just by different means.

two, you're coming from the assumption that the extreme left (the pinnacle of your vertical model) is a desirable goal.

in the end both extremes cause problems.

I would argue (agree with you) that we are MUCH better off being farther left, than right, and that the evils of the right out weigh the evils of the left - a nanny state is an evil, imho, but usually a conservative agenda hiding in liberal clothing - and thus we SHOULD be farther left, to balance out the right.

I still agree with the lineal (ring) model, but not with how the center is being portrayed in the world (US).

I agree, we are so far to the fucking right in the US, that we have no clue where the (real) center is anymore, let alone what a REAL leftist looks like!

[Political Heretic]

8. No, I don't agree.

The ring notion is just another piece of nonsense put forth by those suggesting that the status quo is a "sensible center" and that outside the status quo is "extreme."

The further you move away from fascism the further you move toward social and economic justice. There's no point in which moving toward greater social and economic justice swings you around to fascism. There's no ring. That is a contradiction.

What is labeled as "fringe left" in this society is nothing more than substantive concern and advocacy for social and economic justice - no more and no less.

What you are calling "extreme communism" isn't. Communism is a set of ideas that be their very definition exclude totalitarianism. If someone is practicing something totalitarian, it is not - by definition - communism, no matter what they say it is.

If you want to argue that some people who claim to be on the "left" are really operating on the "right," fine. But all of that seems to miss the point to me and sets us back in a left/center/right false narrative.

There is no "real" center -- there is moving from fascism toward greater and greater social and economic justice.... setting up camp at some mid-point.. that's not "reasonable" center - that's just cowardly and weak.

[comtec]

9. i dont disagree that dead center is wrong

as i noted, a very healthy heaping of the left is needed to balance out.

but you have to understand, that if they left DID get what they want (and I DO have some pretty lefy friends) it would, in many ways, be no different than what the right wants, just different goals.

there are extremes on both sides. Our's just has a velvet glove around it's steel fist.

Both extremes are bad. However the distance from center to totalitarian left, is a hell of a lot farther than it is for the right.

the idea behind the line/ring idea, is that a balance is needed.

some "old" values are desirable (can't think of any but im were there's there)
being 'conservative' about growth, not growing just because you can into the forest for example.
Technology for technology's sake, is a liberal value that may need to be reigned in at some point if we are NOT going to go into space.

The preservation of human life is a conservative idea - culling the herd for the betterment of hu-person-ity is a liberal idea.

what's better, what's worse?

A balance is best. But where to set the balance?

[disillusioned73]

7. I like you approach & presentation...

I've thought about this very issue many times over the last year or so and come to a very disheartening conclusion. Perception has become reality with a lot of help from our "media" and our so-called representatives.....the polictal spectrum is so skewed to the right I find myself being classified as an "extremist" although I always thought I was a fairy reasonable and mainstream with my political positions.

The big issue is, how do we get this rectified?? How do we get your political "model" back in line with reality?? Unfortunately with all the rights corporations have recieved recently - this is going to be a daunting task.. sigh :(

Thank you for presenting an easy to understand/digest breakdown that I have attempted to wrap my head around recently..

[Odin2005]

10. I don't think politics can be reduced to a single axis.

IMO there are at least 3 axes:

Economic Left vs. Economic Right
Libertarianism vs. Authoritarianism
Social Liberal vs. Social Traditionalist

[middle distance]

11. its two dimensional not linear

See the following site:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

[Mari333]

12. when you stay in the center....and capitulate..

"Be not intimidated... nor suffer yourselves to be wheedled out of your liberties by any pretense of politeness, delicacy, or decency. These, as they are often used, are but three different names for hypocrisy, chicanery and cowardice." John Adams 2nd U.S. President

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. People can define 'economic justice' in very different ways

Everyone thinks they are for 'justice'. But a libertarian's view of economic justice will be very different from a communist's. So much so that I think that using it as one of 2 bases for your political categories is not really useful.

As others have said, 'social justice' and 'economic justice' don't have to go hand in hand, even when you have given your definition of the latter. Multiple dimensions may help here - the 2 dimensions of the Political Compass have the advantage of not being too complicated, and representable on a piece of paper or screen.

One final thing: if you do want to define things as an increasing distance from fascism, then you are in effect saying they are the centre, or starting point, and you are the edge, or extreme, which doesn't sound very inviting. Perhaps, rather than metaphors based on space, one on time would be better (eg 'modern') or motion ('advanced', or the old favourite 'progressive').

[Political Heretic]

14. morning kick