this is just another shameless plug for the centrist, do-nothing crowd.
I caught “paradigm” disorder from this article.
Geez! How many times does the word “paradigm” appear in this article?
Mega FAIL.
Well I teach my kids, authoritarian vs anarchy spectrum. The so called “left” are not yesterdays classical liberal they are to the extreme side of the authoritarian chart, no? Conservatives are for small government, big on societal moral censure and crimes where the rulers are exercising their rightful authority in a very specific limited domain of authority. Don’t need that with socialism. Its ad hoc gov’s domain is whatever serves their whim at any particular moment.
when it becomes clear that all trends are shifting to the right, trash the paradigm
The paradigm still works if one puts the fascists and the national socialists where they belong which is on the left with the the rest of the socialists.
The big problem so many have with the correct model is that they think because the facists and the national socialists (Italy and Germany) declared war on the communists (Russia) is that the facists and national socialists must therefore be on different ends of the spectrum.
RE Left vs Right has failed us:
It is because it ceased to be left vs right behind the scenes. Fights between the factions are mostly just for public consumption now. Our policians are consumed by greed and power. Now, it is really the elite and political class against everybody else. Watch what they do, not what they say.
Is the person writing this trying to cause thought? If so, the first thought I have is If center is right, what’s Left is a strange way to start it. Seems to me the Left is Left, and the Right is Right, and the Center is bullshit.
What good is the Center unless we’re navigating a canal?
Seems to me this Nation is fueled by, and runs on debate. Center doesn’t provide fuel for the fire.
I lump all of the Communists, socialists, fascists, into a big pool. For whatever reason, they think a big centralized federal government which handles as much as it can is the best way to go. These are the modern versions of Kings and monarchies. From upon the throne, they issue edicts which we are all to follow. As Mark Levin describes, they are all statists of one flavor .
I put those who favor a small federal government on the other side. Those that believe government should follow the Constitution. It should handle only what’s specifically enummerated in the Constitution, cedeing the rest of the authority to the States or the People as described in the Constitution. These are the people who believe in liberty and freedom.
Mark Levin said it best. No matter how the debate is framed, it eventually boils down to one thing. Liberty vs. Tyranny.
Fascism, National Socialism, Communism, and Progressivism are clearly Collectivist philosophies. If you think "It takes a village to raise a child" or "Do it for the children" or "Jews are bad" then you are engaging in Collectist thought where some groups are more important than other groups.
Conservatism, Libertarianism and the Tea Party movement are all Individualist philosophies. If you believe in personal responsibility, you are an Individualist.
Each person will vary in degree as to how "extreme" they wish to be, but it really all comes down to indivuduals or groups being at the center of your secular worldview.
A true American centrist should be one that believes in the bedrock laid for the road our republic was to travel on, more government = left, less government = right. This subject was well addressed by Joe Farah a number of years ago. With all that said, it will be skewed by most to mean what they want.
Thomas Jefferson was asked how to interpret the constitution, he said go back to the original intent at the time it was debated and formed to interpret it.
The Right/Left Hoax
Words are tools of thought. That’s why, in George Orwell’s “1984”, the political goal of IngSoc was to reduce the number of words available, through a process of continuous redefinition and elimination. By reducing the number of words, and eliminating “undesirable” ones, the Party intended to utterly control the thoughts, and therefore the minds, of all its subjects.
In a prophetic way, we see this Orwellian “newspeak” going on today. And just one example is the way that political debate is constrained by the use of loaded terms. For example:
Are you right wing or left wing? Or are you in the middle?
Whether we like it or not, political labels are useful. Terms like racist, feminist, fascist, socialist, environmentalist, capitalist and so on, encapsulate a set of beliefs and are a verbal shorthand for particular world views - if there is a clear definition as to the meaning of such terms.
But there are two labels which, under closer scrutiny, prove to be utterly confusing and fundamentally flawed. I’m talking about the terms “right wing” and “left wing”. They refer to a political spectrum which has the “right” on one side and the “left” on the other. And most people accept these terms as both legitimate and self-evident. But are they?
More importantly, do the labels “right” and “left actually reflect reality, and enable clarity of thought? Or are they, in fact, an Orwellian tool of obfuscation that only obliterates sound thinking?
It’s a fair enough question, because the whole of our democratic system of political discourse is based on using such terms.
The concept of a political spectrum is sound enough, as it provides a frame of reference for various ideas and opinions. And the reason for using an axis of “right” and “left”, is to provide a means of identifying supposedly philosophically OPPOSITE ideas. Trouble is, “left” and “right” are NOT opposites - not in this case.
If I asked you to define extreme right wing, you’d probably come up with the term “fascism”. And If I asked you to define extreme left wing, then your answer would likely be “communism”.
So what we have is a political spectrum with fascism on the extreme right and communism on the extreme left. Now, because both of these extremes are usually considered undesirable, moderate people find themselves squeezed into the middle. The middle becomes the IDEAL. Which is not surprising really, when you consider the nature of what is waiting for you at either end of the political spectrum!
The middle ground becomes the “desirable” ground, and is supposed to represent a compromise between two opposite and undesirable extremes. But what is the fundamental nature of these supposed opposites?
Fascism is a totalitarian system, where big government and big business are in collusion to lord it over ordinary citizens. Private property is allowed “on paper”, but because owners are not free to use or dispose of their property as they wish, the term loses all its meaning. Under a fascist system of government, the individual’s interest is subservient to the national interest.
Communism is also a totalitarian system, where all property belongs to the state. Government and business are the same thing - as the state owns the means of production. Under a communist system of government, the individual’s interest is likewise subservient to the national interest.
Both political systems result in effective dictatorship. Both reduce their citizens to the status of serfs - under a ruling class. And we have plenty of historical examples to prove it - Germany under Hitler, The Soviet Union under Stalin, Italy under Mussolini and China under Mao - not to mention present day North Korea under “Dear Leader” Kim.
So here we are, stuck with a political spectrum where the extremes on both sides are variations on an identical theme (collectivism and property confiscation) - rather than actual opposites.
It’s like saying the “temperature” spectrum - zero to 100 degrees celsius - has the same state at both ends - freezing (or boiling, take your pick)! Such a temperature scale would be worse than useless.
And so it is with the current political scale/spectrum. Worse than useless - downright dangerous.
Whether you move to the right or the left, your final destination is essentially the same - the philosophy that the individual exists for the benefit of society and that your property can rightfully be expropriated. As the Nazi Goebbels said, “To be a socialist, is to submit the I to the thou; socialism is sacrificing the individual to the whole.” He could just as easily have been speaking of Naziism or fascism.
The way we currently define the left/right political spectrum leaves no room for concepts like individual freedom and property rights. They are obliterated in the no-mans land of the mythical middle.
And this also explains why political parties, of all persuasions, now do battle over the “middle” ground - seeking to win the “middle” or centre vote.
Sure, these parties (no matter in which democracy) attempt to distinguish themselves in some way - but in the end it’s just Tweedledum and Tweedledee, forever moving closer to each other in the fight for the middle ground.
I believe it’s time we got rid of this notion of a political spectrum running between the false alternatives of fascism and communism. They are not opposites, they’re philosophical bedfellows, and should in fact be on the same side of the fence.
The opposite of the idea that the individual exists for the benefit of society, is that society exists for the benefit of the individual. The opposite of collectivism is individualism. The opposite of property confiscation is property rights. So as the philosophies of fascism and communism are both at one extreme of the political spectrum, then at the other extreme should be the opposite - the philosophy of individual freedom and property rights.
There has been an attempt, on the part of political libertarians, to rectify this false alternative - with a modified political spectrum that would put “minimum” government at one end, and “maximum” government at the other end. And while this appears to be an improvement, and perhaps closer to the truth of things - in fact it is neither.
One tool to illustrate this modified political spectrum is the “world’s smallest political quiz” - which promises to uncover your true political leanings:
See: http://www.self-gov.org/quiz.html
Another variant on the same theme prefers an “up” and “down” political spectrum.
See: http://laissez-fairerepublic.com/upvsdown.htm
However, in truth - having “small” government at one end, and “big” government at the other - is not really the solution, because it assumes as a given the very nature and need for the “political” means of organisation itself - government. A more logical axis would be total government at one end, and no government at the other.
Just as the traditional political spectrum has totalitarianism at both ends, in a similar way, the modified libertarian spectrum has “government” at both ends. So you could say that such alternative spectrums are simply a means of casting one’s own ideas in a more favourable light!
To get down to the nitty gritty of things, it is necessary to deal with fundamentals, with philosophic foundations.
So, my own favoured political spectrum could go from right to left, or bottom to top - or forward and backwards! The direction of the axis is unimportant. What IS important is that any attempt to define a spectrum of political philosophy should at least have opposites on either end.
And so, my own suggestion would be to have a political spectrum which has FREEDOM at one end and SLAVERY at the other. However, to make that work, it is necessary to define freedom in a practical way.
I find Andrew J Galambos’ definition fits the bill:
“Freedom is the societal condition that exists when every individual has full (i.e. 100%) control over his own property”.
This definition clearly identifies freedom in a way that can be measured. And keep in mind that “property” includes your own life and body.
So, in my favoured alternative, you would have 100% control of one’s property at one end of the spectrum - and zero control at the other. Or in other words, having 100% freedom at one end of the spectrum, and 100% slavery at the other.
Such a political spectrum would immediately clarify issues and allow for meaningful discussion and disagreement.
However, I believe there’s one thing that wouldn’t change - and that’s the fact most people would still consider themselves to be in the MIDDLE - not too much freedom, and not too much slavery!
To be “extreme” on one side or the other would mean to hold consistently to either the property rights/freedom or the property confiscation/slavery ideal. Ideas that were a mixture of these philosophical opposites (like “I’m for semi-slavery, or semi-freedom”), could rightly claim to be “middle” or “centre”. This “centre” would then be exposed for what it is in reality - not any sort of ideal at all, but an inherently unstable compromise between two antithetical philosophies.
Being a “centrist” politician would have a distinctly unpleasant odour - that of being someone who is for a mix of freedom and slavery, in other words, a champion of moderate enslavement.
At least such an unequivocal political spectrum would draw the bugs out of the woodwork!
Yours in freedom
David MacGregor
Here was my take on it from back in January of 09’. After I wrote this it wasn’t long before Glen Beck was stating something similar on his show.
All Scales Measure Something So What Should a Political Scale Measure? -
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2161922/posts
The left/right fallacy was created by the commies and their usefull idiots at the NY Times after Hitler attacked the Russians - they needed to explain away their former alliance between the Nazis and Commies.
Naziism, fascism, communism, marxism and socialism are all various points on the left end of the spectrum.
One of the most pervasive, perpetual and damaging lies of my lifetime is that the Nazis were right-wing.
. . . identify the extreme left in this country with Communism. The leftist fringe still calls for the old Marxist platform, things like an end to most private property, redistribution of wealth and government ownership of banks and utilities. Many on the left (particularly in the academic world) quite openly express their allegiance to the Marxist agenda.
Obama and Pelosi want to ignore contract law for mortgages facing foreclosure, nationalize the banks and auto manufacturing along with other large businesses, and redistribute the wealth because that's "good for everyone". Is there any difference at all between our Dear Leader and a communist on the extreme . . . leftist fringe?
The writer fundamentally goes off the tracks by identifying Communism on one end of the spectrum and national socialism (Nazi) on the other. They are both socialist ideologies.
- Ronald Reagan: A TIME FOR CHOOSING (October 27, 1964)
The constitutional model. No exceptions or it’s treason.