For those who are curious.
I also contest his inclusion of fascism on the right. I doubt the leaders of the National Socialist German Worker's Party, for example, would be Republicans if they were around today.
The model is actually spherical, with opposing poles. There is no discontinuity in the ‘lines’ as would be your parabolic model, or a linear model. That’s my personal theory however.
Small government and expansive free market enterprise takes a society UP, whereas big government takes a society DOWN, like a giant weight until they're "sleeping with the fishes."
Pre-empting humblegunner’s imminent arrival: any reason for excerpting your own blog besides needing clicks?
I agree with your concept, however the labels “Conservative” and “Social Conservative” don’t belong on the path to Fascism.
The left in our country believe they do, those that are “Conservative” and “Social Conservative”, IMHO believe they push down the path of “Libertarian”, “Objectivism”, with possibly “Anarchy” at the extreme.
I notice the limit of your participation at FreeRepublic consists of posting a link to your blog every month or so . . .
No thanks.
Not sure I buy it, because conservatism is not a self-contained ideology, it is a reaction to progressivism’s attempts to subvert precedent and experience. Without progressivism, there would be no conservatism, and progressivism has only been around a few hundred years, so the spectrum seems to cater to modern perceptions of politics rather than a universal.
The Founders for instance, continued sodomy statutes in the USA, Washington famously dismissed Lt. Enslin in 1778 for attempting sodomy with another soldier. Was Washington really a ‘big government’ guy? Was he a ‘social conservative’? No, this wasn’t seen as government overreach any more than laws against murder or theft. That came later with the advance of progressivism and the destruction of the institutions that used to perform roles the government could not, namely the church and family.
There was no social conservatism or liberalism at this time, you were either depraved or moral, and that was it.
The Libertarian Party has a diamond shaped quiz.
We should compare our design to its implementation by whoever is in power. That it the appropriate measurement.
Go to the video linked to this website and consider its argument for a bit.
By the way, it's my book.
The fundamental problem in your political spectrum is that the words in it aren’t English but Newspeak. This problem traces back at least to the American inversion (in the 1920s according to Safire’s New Political Dictionary) of the meaning of the word “liberal.” I’d say it even goes back further, because I’m pretty sure the term “progressive” got an inverted meaning even earlier. And, BTW, there actually aren’t any real conservatives in America; those who are labeled as such all believe in progress and liberty and therefore can NOT be considered conservative in a meaningful sense.In The Road to Serfdom, F.A. Hayek put paid to the idea that there was any real difference between fascism and communism. They fought (during WWII) “as only half-brothers can” (quote from a nonpolitical old movie, not Hayek). People who believe in liberty can’t stand either fascists or communists - but you position “social conservatives” - who mostly just want the government to stop subverting tradition by means of government schools - right next to fascists, who - just like the communists - want government control of everything.
I posted a similar thought almost a year ago.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3011704/posts
See post # 9.
What drives me crazy is the claim that we are a ‘center-right’ country. If that’s the case, then our instrument of measure is biased to the left of where the people are.
For those who are curious.