|
|
Politics: One dimension or two?Describing the entire domain of political attitudes in terms of a single Right/Left dimension does have its problems. For this reason various authors (e.g. Eysenck, 1954; Rokeach, 1960; Kerlinger, 1967) have proposed that an adequate description of world politics really needs two dimensions. They propose, for example, that the Left-Right dimension be supplemented by an Authoritarian/Permissive dimension. So that democratic Leftists and Rightists are Permissive Leftists and Rightists whereas Communists and Fascists are Authoritarian Leftists and Rightists. Although such proposals have considerable intuitive appeal, they do not, unfortunately, seem to coincide with how people’s attitudes are in fact organized when we do surveys of public opinion. It is very easy to find people’s attitudes polarizing on a Left/Right dimension but nobody has yet managed to show in a satisfactory way any polarization of attitudes on the postulated second dimension (Ray, 1980 & 1982—online here and here). The summary from my 1982 paper published in The Journal of Social Psychology reads as follows:
“Orthogonal” is statistician-speak for “unrelated” or “at right-angles to”. The correlations observed in the data showed that people who agreed with one conservatism statement, no matter how it was conceived, tended to agree with all other conservatism statements. Similarly for expresions of Leftist views. But “authoritarian” or “libertarian” statements did not cluster together at all. Your being a libertarian on one issue did not mean that you would tend to be libertarian on other issues. So it is solely the Left/Right dimension on which people in fact polarize. The account of Left/Right attitudes given in my monograph suggests why this is so. For a start, the assumption that Fascists or Nazis are Right-wing is false. Hitler himself energetically claimed to be a socialist and Mussolini (the founder of Fascism) was a lifelong Marxist. The evidence for this has been summarized at great length elsewhere so will not be elaborated here. Historically, the core of conservatism has always been a suspicion of government power and intervention and conservatives therefore accept only the minimum amount of government that seems needed for a civil society to function. So it is no wonder that there is no authoritarian version of conservative ideology. If it were authoritarian it could not be conservative. Leftism, on the other hand, IS intrinsically authoritarian and power-loving and will always therefore tend in the direction of government domination. It is only non-authoritarian to the extent that is thwarted by external influences (such as democracy) from achieving its aims. Leftists in democratic societies do of course commonly deny authoritarian motivations but that is just part of their “cover”. Deeds speak louder than words. It may be worth noting that one researcher (Goertzel (1987) did manage to derive two personality measures that seem to correspond fairly closely with the usual proposals what underlies political orientation. He called his two measures “tendermindedness-toughness” and “intuitiveness-consistency” and the latter was certainly very reminiscent of conservatism. So how did these two personality measures correlate with a range of political beliefs? Negligibly in all cases—see his Table 4. Once again we see that a two-dimensional account of what underlies political orientation just does not work out empirically. References: Posted by jonjayray on Monday, June 6, 2005 at 04:27 PM in Psychology Comments:2
Posted by jonjayray on June 06, 2005, 08:27 PM | # The Gracchi are sometimes seen as early Leftists 3
Posted by Anon on June 06, 2005, 09:38 PM | # http://www.politicalcompass.org The X axis is used for economic left/right, while the Y is used for social libertarian/authoritarian. Quadrant one is non-libertarian rightists (“conservatives”); quadrant two, authoritarian leftists; quadrant three, libertarian leftists (oxymoron!); and quadrant four, libertarian rightists. Economic Left/Right: 6.88 It would be more accurate if they made it a political cube—that is, if they added a forward/back dimension for foreign policy. 4
Posted by jonjayray on June 06, 2005, 11:16 PM | # The Political Compass is a concept, not a picture of reality 5
Posted by Mrs. Blessed on June 07, 2005, 01:15 AM | # I always stumble on analyses such as this due to the definitions of “government” and authoritarianism/libertarianism, especially as they relate to federalism. A person who would accept an authoritarian school board, for example, would probably oppose the same kind of power being wielded by the federal government. As another example, I have always been frustrated by libertarians who rail equally at the federal War on Drugs and at Ben Johnson, who is only trying to keep drugs out of Volusia County. Authoritarianism works better at the local level (starting with the family) and becomes progressively worse over time and geography. To say that conservatives distrust governmental power and/or regulation is just too simplistic, in my opinion. 6
Posted by James Bowery on June 07, 2005, 03:36 AM | # When Spearman invented factor analysis he was attempting to find the dimensionality of the space of intelligence—hypothesizing there was some ‘g’ factor or general intelligence dimension that could explain all the others. I really don’t get it. What is the big deal? This technique is a century old now. What is the dimensionality of the political persona according to factor analysis? 7
Posted by jonjayray on June 07, 2005, 06:45 AM | # Factor analysis of political attitudes always finds a strong first factor—regardless of method. A bit weaker than g though. 8
Posted by Mark Richardson on June 07, 2005, 07:18 AM | # The political spectrum identifies differences within liberal politics. The further right you go on the spectrum, the more you find liberals who are anti-state and pro-free market. The Randites are therefore at the “extreme right” of the spectrum. The further left you go, the more you find people who are anti-state and anti-free market. The anarchists are therefore at the “extreme left”. In the middle are liberals who are more accepting of the state. The peak of statism is not exactly in the middle but in the left-wing of the social democratic parties. The reason why the Nazis and fascists don’t fit easily onto the spectrum is that they were not part of the mainstream development of democratic liberalism. Similarly, traditionalist conservatives seem to fit in the centre of the spectrum. But this is misleading as in reality we don’t occupy the middle ground of politics at all. The reason for the confusion is that traditionalists haven’t had the kind of organised political presence to force the spectrum to develop around our views. If we had been strong enough to form one end of politics then the spectrum would have developed differently. One end of the spectrum would have been formed by those who support an individualistic notion of freedom (liberals) and the other end by those who support traditional forms of human relatedness (conservatives). 9
Posted by Guessedworker on June 07, 2005, 07:43 AM | # I got curious about Political Compass over a year ago. God’s truth, I tested a hairbreadth away from Tony Blair. That proves to me that Mark is correct. Markers for Conservatism are not replicated on a freedom-founded axiality. Something like this might be a workable bi-axial template for Conservatism:- . Individualism Any better ideas? 10
Posted by Fred Scrooby on June 07, 2005, 08:41 AM | # “I got curious about Political Compass over a year ago. God’s truth, I tested a hairbreadth away from Tony Blair.” (—GW) I also took the thing about a year ago when someone posted it in a comments thread at Turnabout. It placed me at the point (-1, 0) (i.e., one notch to the left of neutral on the “left-right” axis and in the middle on the “authoritarian-libertarian” axis). Taking it over again just now, I was placed at the point (-1.25, 0.51), which it rounded off, graphing me at the point (-1, 1). So, for me it was pretty consistent from one year to the next. But it was way too simplistic to meaningfully place any typical MR.com regular, for example, on the political spectrum. It was an extremely simplistic test which I don’t see as having any value except perhaps for people who don’t give political issues much thought and are oblivious to their nuances. 11
Posted by JW Holliday on June 07, 2005, 09:12 AM | # I stand by my criticism of the linear system. It is incredibly naive to use opinion poll data on people - or should I say, sheeple - who have been exposed to a constrained political spectrum their entire lives. In a society in which George “open borders, I love diversity, no child left behind” Bush is considered a “far-right conservative”, people just do not understand or incorporate the alternatives. It is like trying to explain our 3-D world to someone from a 2-D universe. Either:- a) the politically sophisticated (eg, people from this blog and others who have an understanding of politics) should be questioned, or b) Such questioning should be eschewed until such time that the gloobalist stranglehold on political discussion is ended (don’t hold your breath) To call Hitler and Mussolini “leftists” due to their place on some sort of linear political spectrum is absurd, at least from the standpoint of ultimate interests - genetic. I may as well define “right” as being in favor of biological and cultural preservation, while “left” eschews such in favor of other goals - eg, introducing “selected diversity” to remake society in favor of economic ideology (“anti-socialism”). Thus, Hitler is “right” and John Ray is “left.” These are all semantics. By the way, the political compass put me as an “authoritarian leftist” - the “left” presumably because I question the utility of unrestrained capitalism. The political spectrum should reflect the possiblities of important human ideologies, and reflect ultimate interests. The linear perpective of John fails this test, and the political/economic orientation of political compass fails as well, because ethnic considerations are secondary, rather than primary, there. We need to stop thinking in terms of what the “last man” (Nietzsche’s term) “feels” about politics, and start thinking about the full spectrum of human ideological endeavors. This blog should not be a barometer of “popular opinion”, but an attempt to influence opinion. 12
Posted by James Bowery on June 07, 2005, 10:24 AM | # Factor analysis of political attitudes always finds a strong first factor—regardless of method. A bit weaker than g though. I’m not surprised. So what are the top 3 of these dimensions? People can intuitively handle 3 dimensions pretty easily. What are the strengths of these dimensions? What is the best phrase that would describe each? 13
Posted by James Bowery on June 07, 2005, 11:56 AM | # After taking some of the online political attitude questionnaires I can see one reason, other than the lack of consilience with sociobiology, why political science is going nowhere fast: They haven’t come up with good techniques for constructing questionnaires. These things are garbage. 14
Posted by jonjayray on June 07, 2005, 06:46 PM | # “It is incredibly naive to use opinion poll data on people - or should I say, sheeple - who have been exposed to a constrained political spectrum their entire lives” THAT is naive. Politicians follow the people in a democracy. They lose otherwise. 15
Posted by jonjayray on June 07, 2005, 06:48 PM | # “So what are the top 3 of these dimensions? “ Depends of the Qs you include and the rotations but the strongest two-factor solution is economic versus moral/religious. Odds and sods after that. 16
Posted by jonjayray on June 07, 2005, 06:50 PM | # “Any better ideas? “ Many have tried and all have failed 17
Posted by jonjayray on June 07, 2005, 06:52 PM | # “They haven’t come up with good techniques for constructing questionnaires. These things are garbage” That is true of 90% of them 18
Posted by jonjayray on June 07, 2005, 06:57 PM | # There is another well-known 2 dimensional quiz here: 19
Posted by ben tillman on June 07, 2005, 07:29 PM | # Many have tried and all have failed I think John Bolton did very well in his comment to your post on authoritarianism:
The principle of tolerance of aggression distills the nationalism vs. internationalism dimension and the community vs. statism/individualism dimension into one common thread. The Left tolerates aggression both beyond borders and within borders. 20
Posted by ben tillman on June 07, 2005, 07:51 PM | # “By the way, the political compass put me as an ‘authoritarian leftist’ - the ‘left’ presumably because I question the utility of unrestrained capitalism.” “Unrestrained capitalism” is the same as statism. It consists of hyperindividualism, with a duality of rulers and ruled. 21
Posted by jonjayray on June 08, 2005, 05:01 AM | # Ben My research shows that it is conservatives who accept aggression. See: 23
Posted by jonjayray on June 08, 2005, 05:21 AM | # I think we must be careful of claimed Leftist beliefs. I did a big study of misanthropy which led to the following post on my blog on August 31st., 2003: Dennis Prager makes a point about Left/Right differences that we often hear: “At the heart of liberalism is the naive belief that people are basically good. As a result of this belief, liberals rarely blame people for the evil they do. Instead, they blame economics, parents, capitalism, racism, and anything else that can let the individual off the hook” The latest upload of one of my published academic articles (http://jonjayray.netfirms.com/conmisan.html) presents some survey evidence on that claim. It is undoubtedly true that Leftists do usually talk as if we can trust the innate goodness of humankind to make their do-gooder programs work out in practice but do they really believe it? Is a different view of man really basic to who is Leftist and who is Rightist? Rather surprisingly, my survey showed no relationship at all between a cynical view of man and whether or not you are conservative. People in the community at large who were cynical about human motivations were just as likely to be Leftist as conservative. That does tend to suggest that the “trusting” view of man sometimes expressed by Leftists is just a ploy to help them win arguments—not something that they really believe. Leftists as well as Rightists realize that man is basically selfish but only conservatives try to take realistic account of that in the policies they frame. 24
Posted by JW Holliday on June 08, 2005, 08:23 AM | # John: “THAT is naive. Politicians follow the people in a democracy. They lose otherwise.” 25
Posted by ben tillman on June 08, 2005, 11:34 AM | # My research shows that it is conservatives who accept aggression. You’re talking about psychology. I’m talking about politics. Leftist politics always consist of aggression. Conservative politics are politics directed toward restoring or preserving the natural order. You’re also contradicting your own article that you linked to: In other words it is felt that the Conservative is characterized by a belief that aggressiveness is innate in man and accordingly accepts this as inevitable. In the article, you say that conservatives recognize (or “accept”) that aggressiveness exists and is something to be guarded against. That’s totally different from accepting aggression. In fact, it is a prerequisite for opposing and limiting aggression. 26
Posted by John S Bolton on June 08, 2005, 07:36 PM | # The right, as in Ray’s research, regardless of income or class level, tends to accept counteraggressional violence by officials, while the left does not. Another dimension is materialism vs. spirituality and volitionism on the right. Maximum freedom for aggression and maximum materialism would be one corner. Extreme theocracy would occupy the corner of maximum play for aggression, combined with maximal spirituality. The other two corners represent excluded possibilities for politics, and this is a serious charge against imagination in our species, that such extremes remain unimagined. A society with least freedom for aggression, combined with either maximum spirituality or extreme materialism, are as yet unimagined. The greatest possible freedom from aggression, especially by that of officials, seems to require that neither fatalistic, amoral materialism; nor spirituality of an extreme sort be characteristic of that society. The left seems to have a very emotional response to aggression, while the right reacts rationally to seeing aggression and counteraggressional violence. Thus, the right can be comfortable with the counteraggressional violence of the police and military, and see it as controllable and sensible. The left sees all violence in strictly impassioned terms; which would explain the mass murder tendencies of the left. They feel that violence can’t be controlled, so why even try? 27
Posted by Rational Islamophobe on June 10, 2005, 11:11 PM | # I used to be a firm believer in the twin axes of the political quiz. Now I side with JJR and think that the original poli-sci continuum is the best representation. Such a continuum starts out left and ends right with such examples as: It is no accident that the national socialism of Germany produced the autobahn - the first interstate highway system and a car that EVERYONE could afford and was highly functional to the point where many are still driven today. It also won the medal tally at the olympics and produced a military that did a great job of going toe to toe with the 3 great powers of the day. A country where people could feel pride with themselves and their civilization. It showed an example of what a White country with the shackles of Jewish influence thrown off could actually do. A libertarian would go into a paroxism of cognitive dissonance at that example (I know I might have done) but would not have a good explanation for it. Next entry: The health consequences of race mixing Previous entry: The Bear’s Lair: Removing the stooges |
|
Existential IssuesWhite Genocide ProjectOf note
Recent CommentsAlso see trash folder. pay day loans commented in entry 'Heidegger: The West Texas Translation' on 05/24/12, 09:59 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 09:49 AM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 08:54 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 07:41 AM. (go) (view) uh commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 07:18 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 06:53 AM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 05/24/12, 06:48 AM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'The facial proportions of beautiful people' on 05/24/12, 06:47 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 06:32 AM. (go) (view) Guest commented in entry 'The Torment of the Mulattoes' on 05/24/12, 06:17 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/24/12, 03:05 AM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:31 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/24/12, 02:03 AM. (go) (view) Captainchaos commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 11:08 PM. (go) (view) Captainchaos commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 09:13 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 07:47 PM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'Indian beauty' on 05/23/12, 12:52 PM. (go) (view) Lee John Barnes commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 12:45 PM. (go) (view) Swan commented in entry 'More on the Indian beauty question' on 05/23/12, 12:31 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 11:43 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 11:32 AM. (go) (view) Mellaba Pechios commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/23/12, 07:55 AM. (go) (view) daniel commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/23/12, 03:51 AM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:40 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:40 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:26 PM. (go) (view) Leon Haller commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 10:23 PM. (go) (view) 7 Year BA commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 09:19 PM. (go) (view) DARYL commented in entry 'A repeatable comment for mass-pasting on American public message boards' on 05/22/12, 08:57 PM. (go) (view) Thorn commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 08:31 PM. (go) (view) Church of Jed commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 07:40 PM. (go) (view) Selous Scout commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 05:56 PM. (go) (view) Silver commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/22/12, 11:37 AM. (go) (view) AnalogMan commented in entry 'Golden Dawn - Greece' on 05/22/12, 11:29 AM. (go) (view) Wandrin commented in entry 'Beyond the 14 words' on 05/22/12, 07:42 AM. (go) (view) Recent Posts
General NewsScience NewsScience CategoriesAll CategoriesThe WritersEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages. LinksEndorsement not implied. Controlled Opposition Crime
General
Immigration
Islam Jews
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Whites in Africa |
Posted by Armasus on June 06, 2005, 04:49 PM | #
Politics nowadays is dull, and the left-right dichotomy is even duller. During Roman times, at least, it had some substance and politics was all about gaining power for yourself. Where would Julius Caesar, say, fit into the left-right spectrum?