Who Represents The Left And Who Represents The Right?

Submitted by: m3dm3d 3 months ago in News & Politics

A very common view of the political spectrum is the traditional Left vs. Right representation. On the far left are the Communists, on the far right are the Nazis, and all the other parties are somewhere in between.



This seems simple enough, in particular in a two-parties democracy like the US. Of course, both the Republican and the Democrat party would actually represent a cloud on this line, not a single point, and this is why the primaries can display diverse opinions within the same party. On a simple chart like this one, both Bernie Sanders and Ted Cruz were on the left side of their respective primary winners.

Between, politically speaking "between Trump and Hillary", you'd then expect the left wing of the Republicans to pick Hillary, and some of them did. But this simple left/right view does not explain why so few Bernie supporters voted for Hillary, as the Democrat nominee was closer from them than the Republican.

I then started looking for other representations, allowing for more explanations. Most other representations only cross that existing left/right spectrum against an "anarchist versus authoritarian" view, like this one.


In this two-dimension view, Cruz and Clinton would remain close enough (neither anarchist nor authoritarian), but authoritarian Trump and anarchist Sanders would be even further to each other, only calling for a strong Bernie vote in favor of Hillary. This is not what happened, though.

While I was stuck with the traditional views, I was also watching the upcoming French election, only to see similar trends. In all presidential elections since WWII, we had a traditional left/right opposition, and the votes of the first round losers were "logically" reported on the closest remaining candidate. But the polls this year were then seeing six frontrunners, not only two! More interestingly, two of these frontrunners were facing each other in the Socialist primary, each one representing one side of his party in this left/right view. Still, the polls conducted on both scenarios did not reflect the expected vote shifts. An elimination of former PM Manuel Valls in the primary would mostly benefit former Republican PM François Fillon and not former Economy Minister Emmanuel Macron. This was absolutely incredible, and somehow reflected the puzzling outcome of the US election.

It then was explained by this interview, claiming that electors in each group tended to radicalized along two major questions:

  1. Globalization. Globalization is not seen as "everybody wins" anymore. Wall Street, big companies, and a few people benefit from it while unskilled workers and small businesses cannot compete with developing countries salaries. In this scheme, "Wall Street candidates" like Clinton are opposed to "People candidates" like Trump or Sanders.
  2. Minorities. Not restricted to "the place of Black and Hispanic minorities in the society", but also dealing with immigration policies and "sanctuary cities", LGBT rights and "bathroom bills". This is where the old left/right scheme is still visible: progressists like Sanders and Clinton can oppose conservators Trump and Cruz.

While crossing these two views, you obtain 4 different politic groups, each of them in one corner of the graph, showing the radicalization of the electors in each of the group:

There are 32 comments:
Male 4,082
@m3dm3d:

Hey just found your post, but this is really good. I disagree that Trump was to the left of Trump, I think they just pandered to different parts of the Republican party. Trump was more protectionist, and Cruz was more devoted to conservative principlism. In the end though I think foreign policy topped national policy and people were more in favor of a populist outsider rather than a tea party insider.

I think what we are seeing, and this is only my opinion but, I think after the 2008 great recession the world populous lost a lot of trust for their respective governments and politicians. I think there is a lot of held over anger still about it and it pushes people to want to to just strike out any political leaders who were involved with it or may be seen to be similar to the old guard. 

I think the media stokes this fire, due to a need to create interesting stories and love of dirty laundry. They focus on every little anomaly, which they should, but neglect to report how things are getting better or were fixed. The media in general is also very polarized, leading to a loss in faith in the media.  

In the end I think people have started to fill in to niche media outlets that only tell them what they want to hear. They are kicking the old guard out of politics, erasing any expertise in the government, and  leaving the political field far more ruckus, reactionary, and less likely to succeed.
0
Reply
8
Fancy here: Here's this dude's email address -- manishashinde015outlook.com

spam the fuck out of him the way he's spamming the site.
0
Reply
Male 306
Huh... 3 totally meaningless charts
0
Reply
Male 786
American politics are pretty far right currently. On forums with more international users I was being called a right wing nut. 
0
Reply
Male 1,527
marsii I get the same treatment when I travel abroad. 
0
Reply
Male 3,523
marsii That's pretty funny marsy! Just because they knew you were a US citizen or for views you were expressing?
1
Reply
Male 786
trimble Bit of both. Stance on Iran, guns, Isreal. 
0
Reply
Male 3,523
marsii Well Hell, not surprised with those three topics.
1
Reply
Male 3,523
I really don't get where some folks say we now have Fascists in charge of our government. I look in my gun cabinet and see it is no where near empty. We don't have Fascists in charge.
2
Reply
Male 5,101
trimble probably you have a confused idea of what fascism is , or maybe just different from me. Having guns in your cabinet dont mean you are in a free country.


0
Reply
Male 3,523
piperfawn Are you sure you know what a free country really is?
0
Reply
Male 5,101
0
Reply
Male 249
fancyclad: any trick to put images? I feel bad to just give you the link to it each time
0
Reply
Male 38,418
m3dm3d Some images just don't link, I'm not sure which types exactly...
You right-click "copy" (not 'copy shortcut') on a web image someplace and "paste" it in your comment. If you can see it? It ought to work.
Re-sizing doesn't work, at least it never has for me.

For submissions? I think fancy can work with links just as easily as pictures? Not sure about that tho.
-1
Reply
Male 38,418
Seriously, this is far more accurate:
0
Reply
Male 38,418
Fascism is leftist: government take over of industry, stripping people of their rights, strong (unelected) central government with absolute authority? When have conservatives supported that?

The dictionary makes no mention of it being "conservative" and lists several VERY leftist "ideals" as it's central features.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism
-3
Reply
Male 5,890
5cats The Right (for Conservative) and Left (for Liberal) designations actually come from French, I think, political history where the Conservatives (those who wanted to conserve the monarchy) sat to the right and the Liberals (who wanted to change to democracy) sat to the left. That's the reason that fascism is considered far right wing - for government control of the people, with communism being far left - for (supposed) control of government by the people.
Also, we liberals don't really want to take over industry. We don't want an unelected central government with absolute authority (where the hell did that come from?). We do want government to control how poorly industry sometimes (often) treats individuals, though. Conservatives want nothing like that, of course, because they don't give a shit about individuals. They support "trickle down" economics. Of course, that which "trickles down" upon us most often seems to be coming from the asses of our industrial leaders but that's okay with conservatives, for some bizarre reason. Leftists want to strip people of rights? You mean like the right to choose an abortion, or to choose which bathroom to use (I'm actually on your side with that one), or whether to go pick up a bottle of rum on a Sunday for instance? I think you have this pretty much exactly bass-ackwards!
0
Reply
Male 38,418
broizfam Forcing a business to cater a wedding they morally object to is not conservative or right wing. Calling for a boycott of said business is very liberal and leftist though!

Locking people in prison who disagree with AGW is neither as well. And etc.

You are correct on the history of the term, but it has evolved a little since then eh?

Obama was the biggest 'trickle down' spender in US history, except he gave the handouts to political bagmen, not to actual viable businesses, so almost all of it was squandered. He called it a different name, but it was trickle-down.
0
Reply
Male 5,890
5cats You are, once again, equating the extremists of a group as being representative of the whole group. I don't believe businesses should, necessarily, be legally forced to cater such a wedding but I have no problem with people boycotting such a business if they find that the business is, to them, morally objectionable either. If the business is asked simply to supply the food, though, then it's none of their business if it's for a party given by Gays, Muslims, Blacks or whatever. Supply the fucking food. That's like refusing to serve someone at your diner because of their race, religion, or sexual orientation or refusing to let them ride in the front of the bus. If they refuse to go and be the servers, I have a harder time arguing it.
0
Reply
Male 249
5cats Depends on what you look at for left vs right, and this is exactly why a uni-dimensional view does not work.
Fascists are traditionally represented as "far right" because of the (initially unlikely) union between Hitler and Mussolini.

Communism: everyone should wear the same clothes, have the same car and have the same pay. Nazism: Aryans should wear nice clothes, drive nice cars and have wealth while non-Aryans should die. Kinda opposes itself. But what really united Hitler, Franco and Mussolini was their authoritarian way (the second graph is then more accurate).

But yes, in many ways Hitler was on the left side (well, he was National-Socialist after all, two ideas that do not go on the same end of the graph)


0
Reply
Male 38,418
m3dm3d Ok cool. 

Clinton should be above Valls, she was not an actual 'progressive' but mouthed the words for the public. Her deeds were the opposite. Cruz was more Progressive than she was, I think.

Stalin, Mao, Mugabe and all the rest of the 'Great Communist Leaders' lived in absolute luxury, the hallmark of Socialism is "one rule for the Elite, a separate rule for the masses". I see little or no difference between Communism and Fascism in actuality, only in their theory.
-2
Reply
Male 5,890
5cats "I see little or no difference between Communism and Fascism in actuality, only in their theory."
Poor Marx would be turning in his grave (Karl, that is, not Groucho!) but that's exactly right. There really isn't any communist government. Sort of communist based economy, maybe, but the government sure tends to be pretty absolutely totalitarian in actual practice.
0
Reply
Male 5,101
5cats Every dictator  knows that if you want to take the power for you and for your restricted elite you must get masses approval and to do that you must proclaim yourself a leftist in the first stage cause masses are done of left people in the majority. The dictators we know have proclamed themselves leftist but just for mere speculation and to get votes and power, once they got votes and power they all have established their elite net, right ideology, where oligarchy and discrimination rules. Dictatorship is the higer step in the right ideology.

0
Reply
Male 38,418
piperfawn In other words: Hillary Clinton.

And you are denying that every single "communist" (not "socialist" which is a VERY broad term!) nation started out or ended up as a dictatorship? Can you provide some exceptions?
0
Reply
Male 5,101
5cats
 China 
 Cuba 
 Vietnam 
 Laos
 Boliva 
 Venezuela 
 Mozambico
0
Reply
Male 38,418
piperfawn Yes, you've proved my point. Thanks!

Unless you think China is a democracy? LOLZ! No one is THAT stupid! Right?
Cuba... Cuba? LMFAO no way dude! You are not that stupid, right? Riiight?

Please learn how to spell "Mozambique"ok? Thx!
0
Reply
Male 5,101
5cats China and Cuba both have elections, in a dictatorship there are no elections. Mozambico is the italian name for Mozambique.

0
Reply
Male 38,418
piperfawn Oh, fair enough about Mozambique. Sorry to bark at you over it.

And if you think Cuba has ever had an election? LOLZ that's really the icing on my cake :-) You know who else had elections? Saddam Hussein.
0
Reply
Male 5,101
5cats nope

0
Reply
Male 38,418
piperfawn Saddam did too hold elections! He won 99.7% of the vote of course... go look it up. 
Cuba held "elections" but not free elections, so did a lot of dictators. Holding rigged elections doesn't make them legitimate...
0
Reply
Male 5,890
5cats They can vote in North Korea, too...for Kim Jong Un.
0
Reply
Male 7,045
5cats Cruz more progressive?  WTF?  Are you freaking serious?
1
Reply