Political Spectrums - How do you see it?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by classicaliberal, Mar 21, 2013.

  1. classicaliberal, Mar 21, 2013
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2013

    classicaliberal macrumors regular


    Jul 19, 2011
    One thing I always find fascinating is how differently people use the same words. We all know the frustrations with simple words like 'conservative' and 'liberal', and how people in the same country, let alone around the world can understand these words to mean completely different things.

    Within the context of American politics, I'm curious how you tend to see the scale of politics. Do you put the Anarchists next to the Libertarians, or next to the Communists? Do you have Dems and Repubs next to eachother, or on opposite sides of the scale? Are Liberals more or less 'totalitarian' than Conservatives?

    I've put some different random scales I found on the web below (some silly, some traditional, some unique) I'm curious which of these (if any) you tend to agree with more, and why? If you have one you prefer, please post it for everyone to consider!

    A) [​IMG]

    B) [​IMG]

    C) [​IMG]

    D) [​IMG]

    E) [​IMG]

    F) [​IMG]
  2. satcomer macrumors 603


    Feb 19, 2008
    The Finger Lakes Region
  3. eric/ Guest


    Sep 19, 2011
    Ohio, United States
    All "spectrums" are bad. They attempt to limit definitions, and often times these graphs can be tricky or misleading, take the last one, which has the further away from libertarianism you go, the more "red" "danger" it gets. Even though I agree, I can see how it's misleading. Even more so, these categories are completely arbitrary. For instance, all people who advocate government are statists to somebody who is an anarchist.

    What's best is to not try and place yourself, or others in categories, but find their positions, and compare and contrast.

    For example, finding somebody who is a "republican" who is against gay marriage. Show them how somebody who advocates small government (or is supposed to anyway, or at least that's what it's supposed to have become) is being inconsistent when they advocate that government be involved in private lives.
  4. hulugu macrumors 68000


    Aug 13, 2003
    quae tangit perit Trump
    Yeah, these scales are only so helpful, though something like D) is probably the most useful in that it allows for more than a single axis of political thought.

    The best use of the scales is to break down the liberal vs. conservative dichotomy, which often creates lines that break people into separate camps.
  5. zin macrumors 6502

    May 5, 2010
    United Kingdom
    The traditional one-axis left-right spectrum is practically useless today. The two-axis spectrum is useful, but not to a great degree.

    I must say, however, Wink's political scale is incredibly biased and wrong it is laughable.
  6. WestonHarvey1 macrumors 68020

    Jan 9, 2007
    The left/right spectrum has never made any sense. Conservatives are for smaller government. How does taking that idea to the extreme become fascism? Liberals are for larger government. How does taking that idea to the extreme lead to anarchy?
  7. mcrain macrumors 68000


    Feb 8, 2002
    I don't care about the labels, what I do care about is that the people who are in office under the heading Republican refuse to compromise, and they are doing so because the people who elected them don't want them to compromise. That is destroying our fabric of government.

    The best solution isn't the one that one side wants, or the other. It is the solution that the two sides sit down and negotiate and compromise to reach. The absolutism and refusal to even consider the proposals put forth by their opposition is, in my mind, unAmerican. It's hurting our standing in the world, and it is just pathetic.
  8. MuddyPaws1 macrumors 6502

    Jul 14, 2012
    Pretty sweeping generalization. So republicans never compromise and democrats always want to. Interesting spin on reality.
  9. Mac'nCheese macrumors 68040


    Feb 9, 2010
    Republicans... 95% of all Republican Members of Congress and all but one of the candidates running for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination signed Grover Norquist's pledge to never raise taxes, no matter what. Republicans.....held up aid to 9/11 first responders until the tax breaks for the rich were renewed because they refuse to compromise on that issue.
    That is reality. Please link me to an issue in which the republicans wanted to compromise on anything and the dems held fast to what they wanted.

  10. MuddyPaws1 macrumors 6502

    Jul 14, 2012
    10 second google search brought up plenty. But this isn't a tit for tat thing. The point was that both sides can be just as stubborn and both sides compromise. Some issues are the backbone of the party...whatever party... and there won't be much in the way of compromise on those issues.
  11. Mac'nCheese macrumors 68040


    Feb 9, 2010
    Some issues are the backbone of both parties. Unfortunately, not compromising with Dems is one of the ones Republicans have. Remember, this is the one agenda party of Obama's first term: get rid of Obama. Please, they don't even compare.
  12. MuddyPaws1 macrumors 6502

    Jul 14, 2012
    Wow, you are so stubborn, you can't even compromise that both parties are stubborn.

    I am trying to compromise here. You are not.:p
  13. Mac'nCheese macrumors 68040


    Feb 9, 2010
    I guess that's a joke. You can't compromise facts. But you googled stuff so that was a good point.
  14. Menel macrumors 603


    Aug 4, 2011
    Political Spectrums - How do you see it?

    You got crazies to the left, you got crazies to the right
    And you feel like the only sane one in sight

  15. MuddyPaws1 macrumors 6502

    Jul 14, 2012
    Wait....from your link.....

    I searched the page for "no matter what"....doesn't exist on that page. Your paraphrasing makes it sound different then what is actually posted in your link. You make it sound like opposing increased taxes is a bad thing.:confused:

    Sounds good to me.


    Will not budge.


    Vote against any and every.
  16. Mac'nCheese macrumors 68040


    Feb 9, 2010
    The phrase no matter what doesn't appear. Big deal. That's what the pledge is. So they use other wording to mean the exact same thing. The pledge is to never raise taxes. Ever. And yes. It's a bad thing. To never raise taxes? Even in war time? Just a tiny drop? Come one. It's ridiculous. And your one example can be refuted by your own post. Somethings are just the back bone of the party, right?

Share This Page