I still can't get past the fact that I have been a fairly pure libertarian all my adult life and during that time the Venn diagram of my overlap with R and D is not even close. I am in 85-90% agreement with "thinking" conservatives, and they speak the language of freedom and limited government. If a Democrat ever happens to agree with me on policy, their rationale will be completely orthogonal to freedom or individual rights considerations.
If I meet someone and find out they are a Republican, I can be pretty sure we could have a reasonable discussion about policy with a common base in the idea of leaving people alone to do their own thing if reasonably possible to do so. If I discuss things with a Democrat, it's more likely to come down to them being resentful or hateful toward certain people or groups and wanting to use the power of government against them. This is even with very smart people. They just feel no need to do anything except pick a side on a case per case basis with no common theory to apply to all.
I don’t know how long you’ve been alive, but it was much easier to find pro-market liberals in the 90s. Even today, there are lots of pro-market liberals—but largely they stay quiet because it is extremely unpopular in their social groups to express support for ‘late stage capitalism’ which is viewed as dystopian and exploitative even when it’s obviously working for a lot of people.
It’s pretty hard to drum up support for abolishing personal property or money in left circles even as they rage against free economic relationships and free contract.
I disagree with this. Let's distinguish between pro-market (which amounts to a libertarian sort of "do nothing and individuals will solve this problem") and pro-business, in which can also mean all sorts of regulatory intervention, guidance, and management with the government is actively managing economic relationships and outcomes. In doing so, it's ultimately reducing what it means to have "personal property" and "money" to something that's tangibly less than it used to be.
It can be an issue where people are speaking different languages. You might not get much support for abolishing money, but turning "money" into something the government can "turn off" for disfavored classes or uses (as in Canada recently) is likely to be popular. Likewise... if you don't allow people to do anything useful with their property and money (like start businesses), it becomes less objectionable.
I suppose this will depend on the circle you travel in, but I know very many Democrats who would directly laugh at you if you suggested that the government should be able to do the sort of thing that was done in Canada. They might be more or less sympathetic to the goal based on whether or not the class being disenfranchised is popular, but many are too smart not to see how easily such a power would be weaponized against them.
Most people on the left just aren’t very radical. They, like most Americans, are fairly happy with how things are. It’s only the rabidly political classes that take extreme positions.
As a Canadian, I have noticed this! Even the American left recognizes how tyrannical the Trudeau regime has become. Oh, how I wish I could claim asylum in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave!
One might reply that talk is cheap. I note that those Democrats who would "directly laugh at you" didn't say or do anything about the injustice when it was actually happening. They went along without objection.
Likewise, they've gone along with many restrictions on money and property rights here that they would probably "laugh" at if you ask them directly if they'd support.
Perhaps when they laugh and say it's a terrible idea, they're whistling past the graveyard, uncomfortable with themselves and their situation, but unwilling to do anything about it.
Market Meritocracy is "more equal" than divine right of kinds and noble titles. So during the early French Revolution when noble titles was the salient issue in human equality the left was "pro-market" as opposed to "pro-absolutism."
However, once the fight over universal political equality had won over noble titles, the left moved on to "social equality". To achieve that equality markets had to go.
Since markets are inherently unequal (some people are more valuable to the market) they never had any kind of staying power for the left except as temporary lever.
What about a median voter based definition along the income axis: the left is predominant preference below the median and the right above. Are there examples where that definition fails to coincide with natural language?
The US left and right (D and R) is not split along income lines like many believe. That is to say, knowing someone's income doesn't let you predict their party affiliation or beliefs terribly well.
Nope, I think that is pretty accurate, or at least it matches with other similar surveys I have seen.
Note, however, how tiny the differences are. 2-3% difference in the 50K+ range (over 50% of Americans), 7% gap in 30-50K, with 27 to 50% difference in the sub 30k range. Now, that site doesn't list the margin of error, but it probably isn't sub 3%, so for the top half of the distribution there is functionally no difference, for the bottom half it is really close and in the most bottom quarter it is fairly significant. However, the bottom quarter also has a huge number of "No Lean", which is very strange... I don't know what to make of that other than I guess it correlates with surveys that suggest the bottom end of the income distribution is highly unengaged with politics if older, and perhaps when younger (college students) skews left or doesn't admit to being on the right.
At any rate, for roughly 68% of the population (according to this https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/) knowing their income lets you predict party affiliation just about as well as flipping a coin. Knowing where they live is a far better indicator so far as it goes.
I agree that for an individual income is not significantly predictive. however, I am proposing a definition in terms of winning vote shares above and below the median. The definition would only fail if there is an example of a typically described 'right' party winning the below median population or a described as left party winning above the median. An obvious failure will occur when one party wins both groups. I think in most European countries this definition would coincide with typical language use for two party dominated nations. One could modify the definition to say 'Parties that gain larger shares in the above median group or vice versa'.
That's exactly the problem though, party affiliation is only connected to income extremely loosely. Even more so because the very lowest income brackets hardly ever vote. So surveying preferences doesn't predict voting outcomes, because many people don't vote, and whether or not you do vote is correlated with income.
So while parties like to claim they are the party of the working man and not the party of rich fat cats like those other guys, in reality both parties are the party of the rich, middle class and poor. Those who vote, anyway.
Also, bear in mind that this entire discussion is regarding whether there is some essential point that left and right disagree on that determines whether someone will hold that set of opinions. Income definitely isn't it, otherwise that distribution would be highly skewed across income brackets, and not so close to even.
Can you point to a particular world example of a ‘right’ party that polls better amongst below median voters or a ‘left’ one that polls better in above median. Maybe a European green party?
Personally, I believe that the Left-Right spectrum is useful in understanding those who generally accept liberal, democratic capitalism. I do not think, however, that it is useful in understanding pre-modern governance or modern Totalitarianism.
There is no Left and Right among hunter-gatherers, tribal leaders, Big men, kings or emperors. Nor among their followers.
And in modern times once one gets past the terminology and symbolism of Communism, Fascism and National Socialism, they are just different flavors of the same thing.
I really like how you give the authors an opportunity to respond to your reviews. I rarely see that from other reviewers. It speaks well of you.
Seconded. This response in particular was worth reading.
I still can't get past the fact that I have been a fairly pure libertarian all my adult life and during that time the Venn diagram of my overlap with R and D is not even close. I am in 85-90% agreement with "thinking" conservatives, and they speak the language of freedom and limited government. If a Democrat ever happens to agree with me on policy, their rationale will be completely orthogonal to freedom or individual rights considerations.
If I meet someone and find out they are a Republican, I can be pretty sure we could have a reasonable discussion about policy with a common base in the idea of leaving people alone to do their own thing if reasonably possible to do so. If I discuss things with a Democrat, it's more likely to come down to them being resentful or hateful toward certain people or groups and wanting to use the power of government against them. This is even with very smart people. They just feel no need to do anything except pick a side on a case per case basis with no common theory to apply to all.
I don’t know how long you’ve been alive, but it was much easier to find pro-market liberals in the 90s. Even today, there are lots of pro-market liberals—but largely they stay quiet because it is extremely unpopular in their social groups to express support for ‘late stage capitalism’ which is viewed as dystopian and exploitative even when it’s obviously working for a lot of people.
It’s pretty hard to drum up support for abolishing personal property or money in left circles even as they rage against free economic relationships and free contract.
I disagree with this. Let's distinguish between pro-market (which amounts to a libertarian sort of "do nothing and individuals will solve this problem") and pro-business, in which can also mean all sorts of regulatory intervention, guidance, and management with the government is actively managing economic relationships and outcomes. In doing so, it's ultimately reducing what it means to have "personal property" and "money" to something that's tangibly less than it used to be.
It can be an issue where people are speaking different languages. You might not get much support for abolishing money, but turning "money" into something the government can "turn off" for disfavored classes or uses (as in Canada recently) is likely to be popular. Likewise... if you don't allow people to do anything useful with their property and money (like start businesses), it becomes less objectionable.
I suppose this will depend on the circle you travel in, but I know very many Democrats who would directly laugh at you if you suggested that the government should be able to do the sort of thing that was done in Canada. They might be more or less sympathetic to the goal based on whether or not the class being disenfranchised is popular, but many are too smart not to see how easily such a power would be weaponized against them.
Most people on the left just aren’t very radical. They, like most Americans, are fairly happy with how things are. It’s only the rabidly political classes that take extreme positions.
As a Canadian, I have noticed this! Even the American left recognizes how tyrannical the Trudeau regime has become. Oh, how I wish I could claim asylum in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave!
One might reply that talk is cheap. I note that those Democrats who would "directly laugh at you" didn't say or do anything about the injustice when it was actually happening. They went along without objection.
Likewise, they've gone along with many restrictions on money and property rights here that they would probably "laugh" at if you ask them directly if they'd support.
Perhaps when they laugh and say it's a terrible idea, they're whistling past the graveyard, uncomfortable with themselves and their situation, but unwilling to do anything about it.
Actions matter.
Market Meritocracy is "more equal" than divine right of kinds and noble titles. So during the early French Revolution when noble titles was the salient issue in human equality the left was "pro-market" as opposed to "pro-absolutism."
However, once the fight over universal political equality had won over noble titles, the left moved on to "social equality". To achieve that equality markets had to go.
Since markets are inherently unequal (some people are more valuable to the market) they never had any kind of staying power for the left except as temporary lever.
I think that both responses were great as well.
https://open.substack.com/pub/jclester/p/the-political-compass-and-why-libertarianism?r=b5zww&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
How is it possible the term "Nolan Chart" did not appear in that article?
Please comment on Lester’s substack--he will likely reply.
What about a median voter based definition along the income axis: the left is predominant preference below the median and the right above. Are there examples where that definition fails to coincide with natural language?
The US left and right (D and R) is not split along income lines like many believe. That is to say, knowing someone's income doesn't let you predict their party affiliation or beliefs terribly well.
Is this source incorrect?
https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/religious-landscape-study/compare/party-affiliation/by/income-distribution/
Nope, I think that is pretty accurate, or at least it matches with other similar surveys I have seen.
Note, however, how tiny the differences are. 2-3% difference in the 50K+ range (over 50% of Americans), 7% gap in 30-50K, with 27 to 50% difference in the sub 30k range. Now, that site doesn't list the margin of error, but it probably isn't sub 3%, so for the top half of the distribution there is functionally no difference, for the bottom half it is really close and in the most bottom quarter it is fairly significant. However, the bottom quarter also has a huge number of "No Lean", which is very strange... I don't know what to make of that other than I guess it correlates with surveys that suggest the bottom end of the income distribution is highly unengaged with politics if older, and perhaps when younger (college students) skews left or doesn't admit to being on the right.
At any rate, for roughly 68% of the population (according to this https://dqydj.com/income-percentile-calculator/) knowing their income lets you predict party affiliation just about as well as flipping a coin. Knowing where they live is a far better indicator so far as it goes.
I agree that for an individual income is not significantly predictive. however, I am proposing a definition in terms of winning vote shares above and below the median. The definition would only fail if there is an example of a typically described 'right' party winning the below median population or a described as left party winning above the median. An obvious failure will occur when one party wins both groups. I think in most European countries this definition would coincide with typical language use for two party dominated nations. One could modify the definition to say 'Parties that gain larger shares in the above median group or vice versa'.
That's exactly the problem though, party affiliation is only connected to income extremely loosely. Even more so because the very lowest income brackets hardly ever vote. So surveying preferences doesn't predict voting outcomes, because many people don't vote, and whether or not you do vote is correlated with income.
So while parties like to claim they are the party of the working man and not the party of rich fat cats like those other guys, in reality both parties are the party of the rich, middle class and poor. Those who vote, anyway.
Also, bear in mind that this entire discussion is regarding whether there is some essential point that left and right disagree on that determines whether someone will hold that set of opinions. Income definitely isn't it, otherwise that distribution would be highly skewed across income brackets, and not so close to even.
Can you point to a particular world example of a ‘right’ party that polls better amongst below median voters or a ‘left’ one that polls better in above median. Maybe a European green party?
Personally, I believe that the Left-Right spectrum is useful in understanding those who generally accept liberal, democratic capitalism. I do not think, however, that it is useful in understanding pre-modern governance or modern Totalitarianism.
There is no Left and Right among hunter-gatherers, tribal leaders, Big men, kings or emperors. Nor among their followers.
And in modern times once one gets past the terminology and symbolism of Communism, Fascism and National Socialism, they are just different flavors of the same thing.
Moreover, Mussolini was a man of the left. Lenin called him his best student.