A Political Graph of US Politics to describe reality (VANITY)

Myself | 9/26/2026 | rlmorel

[rlmorel]

I am a graphically minded person, and have struggled with a way to effectively portray the reality of our political system in America, and none of the graphic descriptions I see describe it the way I see it. I have given this much thought over the years, and I have always found this particular question puzzling: why would they have ever given us this model shown below?

The only way this graph above (which is the traditional one accepted by the vast majority of Americans) makes any sense is if it were created and pushed by people who were either Communists or Fascists.

As I have said, it is a well known fact that Communists and Fascists have always presented themselves as arch enemies to the other side. As both Hitler and Stalin would have told their populations in WWII, the OTHER side is the epitome of evil, and we are NOTHING like them.

But, it was also known by thinking people in both the Reich and the USSR that the "other" side was a fertile ground for recruitment. Soviets could pick off Nazis and convert them, and vice versa.

They would have subscribed to this graph above placing the two ideologies at polar opposites and putting the gray scale in between. But those who understood things more rationally and not propagandistically understood that Communism and Fascism were really adjacent to each other.

And that makes total sense when you look at everything about those two ideologies. After all, they both had the word "Socialist" embedded in their identities. Both Lenin and Stalin acknowledged that Socialism is simply a temporary stepping stone on the way to Communism (and by extension, Fascism.

So, in light of that, we can then look at why this particular graph is pushed so heavily in the United States and taught in schools from grade school up to the people getting college degrees in political science, as well as the media and even the political parties themselves. Why, indeed?

There are a lot of people (on and off this forum) who believe there is no difference between the Democrat Party and the Republican Party. I think that is absurd, although at some level, particularly with Deep State entities, they are VERY similar. But that is not ideology, that is mostly due to greed. Deep State entities want to preserve the status quo because they don't want to upset the gravy train. They want the "spice to keep flowing" ("Dune" reference there...)

I am not arguing with myself although one could be forgiven for thinking so. "So, if they are not exactly alike then, rlmorel, then then Democrats and Republicans WOULD be at opposite ends of that spectrum, and you are arguing with yourself?"

I believe that spectrum showing Communists as far Left and Republicans (which in many cases, Republican is a proxy for Conservatives, but not always) on the far right is pushed for a very specific reason, as a shorthand for describing American politics.This graph below (from the Internet as well) does a better job of describing the political spectrum but in my opinion, still falls short:

Conservatives, and the MAGA Republican Party are not Fascist. And we aren't "Far Right" at our extreme. MAGA Conservatism is, when using the Constitution as a center of the spectrum (with total government on one side, and no government on the other side) the center ideologically, assuming the Constitution is the reference point , and our spread is out a little to both the Left and the Right in both directions.

So, I believe it looks like this:

I had difficulty trying to place it on the spectrum. I fully concede I have a dim view of Libertarianism. I don't believe there is anything Conservative about Libertarianism, except that tendency towards smaller, less intrusive government, so in that respect, I believe there is overlap there towards smaller government, but even that overlap ends.

Once a Conservative proceeds closer and closer to no government, they stop being a Conservative. Conservatives are not anti-government. We believe in limited government, limited to Constitutionally delineated functions, and in the progression towards no government, that overlap between Conservatives and Libertarians ends.

I also wanted to take into account the Deep State, but I understand that while it CAN be a functionality of ideology, it is just as likely (or more likely) to have as its driving forces both greed and a rejection of change.

I ended up completely enclosing ALL Democrats and Left Leaning Republicans in the Deep State.

I included ALL Democrats because in this polarized environment, there is a collective group-think in the Democrat party with little to no overlap with Republicans. They think in a hive-mind, and they vote as a collective. Because they are as a foundational premise, collectivists.

And I included Left leaning Republicans in the Deep State simply due to the fact that it is in relation to the guidelines of the US Constitution, and non-MAGA Republicans who are progressing to the Left work in coordination with various factions of the Left to produce the same result...a drift away from the Constitution and more to larger government...for their own purposes.

And in both cases Leftists and Left Leaning Republicans largely share the characteristic of "greed"-not wanting the "gravy train" to stop, and thus resisting changes to the status quo which can impede the financial gains possible in a corrupt money-intensive state.

---

TOPICS: Chit/Chat; History; Science; Society
KEYWORDS: conservatism; democrat; leftism; politicalspectrum; republican

[frank ballenger]

Especially the top graph but somewhat true of the others is
the theory that it is similar to a graph wrapped around a cylinder. Two radical sides touching as the middle denounces them both.

When the Macomb County, Michigan (my home region growing up—also Washington Examiner’s Michael Barone) mostly middle class labor union members changed from decades of always Dem to voting GOP as “the Reagan Democrats” it laid the national groundwork for the later Trump victories.

An example of going so far to one end that they joined at the other end and want freedom, individuality, the Great American Way of Life preserved and so on with Trump, after the JFK style Dem Party changed.

Not 100% perfect analysis but has some truth to it, I think.

[FreedomPoster]

I really like where you’re headed with this. Am tight on time this weekend, but will try to give this some proper attention soon.

[for-q-clinton]

It’s is so wrong on personal liberty. It has personal liberty on the left. Well communists would disagree...they want total control.

[for-q-clinton]

Not anymore. I know a lot of libertarians are leaving the party/ideology.

So during the 80s and 90s they libertarians presented more of a right leaning party.

But now they are a definite left leaning party. The party heads appear to pander to the “minority party” of congress thinking that will get them more influence. But it keeps them a joke.

Abortion libertarians think is good (now). Used to be the individual was the child.

Drugs and sex are less of an issue now across all parties.

[rlmorel]

Yes...Dan Bongino refers to that as the “Horse Shoe Theory of Politics” in which the extremes get closer to each other. Anarchy can indeed be as fully tyrannical to your freedom as a fully tyrannical government.

[rlmorel]

I do like that, but it is a very different kind of chart which only lets individuals compare to other individuals. I am going to keep that graphic too. Thank you...

[dadgum]

PING
Political spectrum in graphs

[bigbob]

I like that.

The mental model that appeals to me most is based on the degree of power and control the government has. Or inversely, the amount of individual liberty the people have.

The American Revolution occurred to move the US colonies away from monarchy. Self-government, balance of power, and all the rest have sound historical roots, but the #1 reason was individual liberty.

[ansel12]

“””””I don’t believe there is anything Conservative about Libertarianism, except that tendency towards smaller, less intrusive government, so in that respect, I believe there is overlap there towards smaller government”””””

They don’t really believe in smaller government, they want the Border Patrol ended and the borders opened up completely, we already know that leads to bigger government and loss of individual freedoms, look at California, that was done by immigration, and every state that falls is immigration.

[Tacrolimus1mg]

Not so. There are Libertarians who want open borders and such, and while I favor the smallest, most local government possible, there are certain basic things that a government is supposed to do, one of which of which is protection from external hostilities. This means monitoring borders and maintaining either state militias to make up and army or operating a standing army. Also, see my tagline.

A government is also supposed to ensure that our constitution is followed so that the citizenry has the most freedom possible, but when was the last time the entire government was on board with that?

Until illegal immigration is stopped and voter rolls have been purged (along with the deep state), I can’t vote for a Libertatian. Right now it’s taking votes from someone who can solve the problem - or at least come close to it.

Recreational drugs - I think if you can grow it and don’t make chemical alterations outside of natural methods like burning, boiling in water, and air drying, it’s fine. I draw the line at chemical additives, which make the drugs way more potent. Booze is made with sugars, carbs, water and sometimes yeast being cooked together and later cooled, so the process is similar. Either ban all intoxicants or none of them.

I support monogamy. It’s good for families, the individual, and society. Promiscuity is a problem, straight or not. That is where social fabric really begins to tear. If you want a homosexual relationship, pick one partner at a time. Accept that you can’t have kids. Have a cat at home, FFS, pour your love into that and nieces and nephews. I’m sterile, so I’m fine being an aunt.

If you wanna be a slut, prepare for social consequences. People won’t want to marry you and have kids, they’ll want to find someone who can count the number of partners had on one hand, if at all. People of your sex will keep their spouses away from you and, likely, also avoid you.

If you wanna dress up as a woman even though you’re a dude, fine; but prepare to be socially ostracized. Try to walk into my bathroom, expect to leave a lot closer to being female. Do not push this sh¡t on children. If you do, again, prepare to be ostracized (or worse).

Just my two cents.

[Shady]

Very well reasoned column. Thanks for bringing this to my attention!

[Rockingham]

I have had an active interest in politics for decades. I now think of classifications of political ideology, policy, and actions as distinct and changeable in that they are not always logically consistent or the same from every perspective.

Moreover, these relationships can be usefully thought of as multidimensional and multifactored even though we can only process and understand them in two or three dimensions at a time.

For example, consider how the Left divides the world. Under traditional Marxism, the categories were based on economics. Modern Marxism applies the broader and more flexible categories of oppressed and oppressor.

Yet Marxism in all forms always has a keen sense of whom its political enemies are. That can change in an instant though depending on tactical and strategic considerations.

Thus Marxists and Nazis in Europe began as bitter adversaries because they were competing variants of socialism. Both allied though to bring down the Weimar Republic, after which their mutual enmity played out between Hitler and Stalin in existential terms.

Nevertheless, when circumstances warranted, Hitler and Stalin allied to invade and divide Poland, with the USSR providing natural resources and war materiel to Hitler for use against Britain and France. Eventually, Hitler turned on Stalin and invaded the USSR in June of 1941.

Remarkably, dedicated communists around the world found ways to rationalize these developments in supposed ideological terms. I suggest that the better approach is to recognize that political movements also view circumstances as a matter of how to seize and retain power. This can scramble seemingly neat and settled ideological relationships.

[Taxman]

Ping