Political spectrum

Determining political spectra

In a modern Islamic country, for instance, a political spectrum might be divided along the issue of the clergy's role in government. Those who believe clerics should have the power to enforce Islamic law are on one end of the spectrum, those who support a secular society are on the other; moderates fall at various points in between. In Taiwan, the political spectrum is defined in terms of Chinese reunification versus Taiwan independence.

Even in issues of nationalism, spectra can exist; for example, in the Basque Country of Spain, Basque nationalists range from the EAJ/PNV, who have engaged in coalition governments with both the socialist PSOE and the conservative Partido Popular, to ETA, which engage in terror tactics and armed struggle against the Spanish national government, which they view as an occupying power.

Political spectra can end when one group wins so thoroughly that there is no longer a divergence of opinions. This occurred in the late 1970s through early 1980s in the People's Republic of China in the case between the rightists and the leftists in which the rightists won, or in the late 18th century controversy between the Federalists and the Anti-federalists in the United States. Often in this situation the winners start disagreeing over new issues, and a new political spectrum is created. In some cases, the defeated side can re-appear after several years or several decades, and start the controversy anew.

At other times the political spectrum remains, while the issues which define the spectrum change. The controversy over the selection of William of Orange's successor to the English throne helped to define the British political spectrum which exists to this day, long after the original controversy was resolved.

Left and Right

In modern Western countries, the political spectrum usually is described along left-right lines. This traditional political spectrum is defined along an axis with conservatism, theocracy, and fascism ("the right") on one end, and socialism and communism ("the left") on the other. In North America and Europe, the term liberalism refers to a wide range of political viewpoints which can not easily be categorized as "left" or "right". Classical European liberalism developed as a reaction to the status quo of monarchical rule. This vein of thought, which emphasized the rights of the individual versus the state, was incorporated into American conservatism, where the growing federal government is perceived as the threat to the individual. The terms left and right were also used to describe politics in China starting in the 1920s until the 1980s, although the issues were often very different from those in Western nations.

Multiplicity of interpretation of the left-right axis

• Whether the government's involvement with the economy should be interventionist/socialist (left) or laissez-faire/capitalist (right). This was the most prominent distinction in much of the world outside the US for most of the 20th century.
• Whether the state should prioritize equality (left) or liberty (right). This was proposed by Danielle Allen. [1]
• Whether the state should prioritize social liberty (left) or economic liberty (right).
• Whether the government's involvement with moral issues should be minimal (left) or interventionist (right).
• Whether the government should take care of issues such as health care and retirement benefits (left), or whether individuals should be left to their own devices on such issues (right).
• In budgeting and financial priorities, tending to promote economic security (left) or economic freedom (right).
• Fair outcomes (left) versus fair processes (right). This was proposed by Australian Labor Party leader Mark Latham.
• Whether one embraces change (left) or prefers rigorous justification for change (right). This was proposed by Eric Hoffer.
• Whether human nature and society is malleable (left) or fixed (right). This was proposed by Thomas Sowell.
  

  Historical origin of the terms

Originally, the defining point on the ideological spectrum was the ancien régime ("old order"). "The Right" thus implied support for aristocratic or royal interests, while "The Left" implied opposition to the same. Because the political franchise at the start of the revolution was relatively narrow, the original "Left" represented mainly the interests of the bourgeoisie, the rising capitalist class. At that time, support for laissez-faire capitalism and Free markets were counted as being on the left; today in most Western countries these views would be characterized as being on the Right.

As the franchise expanded over the next several years, it became clear that there was something to the left of that original "Left": the precursors of socialism and communism, advocating the interests of wage-earners and peasants.

Alternative spectra

Some people feel that it is not obvious how these various concepts are related. They say that it is very confusing to speak of the right or the left without indicating what exactly you are referring to. They believe that one should first establish context by defining the axes upon which different positions will be measured.

Nonetheless, the right-left spectrum is so common as to be taken for granted. Many people even have a hard time conceptualizing any alternative to it. However, numerous alternatives exist, usually having been developed by people who feel their views are not fairly represented on the traditional right-left spectrum.

Perhaps the simplest alternative to the left-right spectrum was devised as a rhetorical tool during the Cold War. This was a circle which brought together the far right and left ends of the traditional spectrum, equating "extreme socialism" (i.e. the Communist Party) with "extreme conservatism" (i.e. Fascism). This nexus was particularly useful to those opposed to rapprochement with the Soviet Union.

Another alternative spectrum offered by the conservative American Federalist Journal emphasizes the degree of political control, and thus places totalitarianism at one extreme and anarchism (no government at all) at the other extreme.

Yet another alternative, currently popular among certain environmentalists, uses a single axis to measure what they consider to be the good of the Earth against the good of big business, which is seen as being the force most likely to harm the earth.

In 1998, political author Virginia Postrel, in her book The Future and Its Enemies, offered a new single axis spectrum that measures one's view of the future. On one extreme are those who allegedly fear the future and wish to control it, whom Postrel calls stasists. On the other hand are those who want the future to unfold naturally and without attempts to plan and control, for whom she uses the name dynamists.

Other axes that might merit consideration include: