text:
Political spectrum
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Part of the Politics series
Party politics
Political spectrum
Left-wing
Far-left
Hard-Left
Extreme left
Centre
Centre-left
Radical center
Centre-right, Third Position
Right-wing
Far-right
Hard right
New right
Alt-right
Alt-lite
Party platform
Extremist
Radical
Moderate
Reformist
Syncretic
Third Position
Conservative
Fundamentalist
Reactionary
Party system
Non-partisan
One-party
Dominant-party
Two-party
Multi-party
Coalition
Hung parliament
Confidence and supply
Minority government
Rainbow coalition
Grand coalition
Full coalition
National unity government
Majority government
Lists
Ruling parties by country
Political parties by UN geoscheme
Political ideologies
Politics portal
v
t
e
A political spectrum is a system of classifying different political positions upon one or more geometric axes that symbolize independent political dimensions.[1]
Most long-standing spectra include a right wing and left wing, which originally referred to seating arrangements in the French parliament after the Revolution (1789–1799).[1] According to the simplest left–right axis, communism and socialism are usually regarded internationally as being on the left, whereas conservatism and capitalism are on the right. Liberalism can mean different things in different contexts, sometimes on the left (social liberalism), sometimes within libertarianism (classical liberalism). Those with an intermediate outlook are classified as centrists or moderates. Politics that rejects the conventional left–right spectrum is known as syncretic politics.[2][3]
Political scientists have frequently noted that a single left–right axis is insufficient for describing the existing variation in political beliefs and often include other axes. Though the descriptive words at polar opposites may vary, often in popular biaxial spectra the axes are split between sociocultural issues and economic issues, each scaling from some form of individualism (or government for the freedom of the individual) to some form of communitarianism (or government for the welfare of the community).
Contents
[hide]
1 Historical origin of the terms
2 Academic investigation
2.1 Leonard W. Ferguson
2.2 Hans Eysenck
2.2.1 Relationship between Eysenck's political views and political research
2.2.2 Subsequent criticism of Eysenck's research
2.3 Milton Rokeach
2.4 Later research
3 Other double-axis models
3.1 Nolan: economic freedom, personal freedom
3.2 Political compass
3.3 Greenberg and Jonas: left–right, ideological rigidity
3.4 Pournelle: liberty–control, irrationalism–rationalism
3.5 Inglehart: traditionalist–secular and self expressionist–survivalist
3.6 Mitchell: Eight Ways to Run the Country
3.7 Spatial model
4 Three-axis models
5 Other proposed dimensions
6 Political-spectrum-based forecasts
7 Biological variables
8 See also
9 References
10 External links
Historical origin of the terms[edit]
The terms "Right" and "Left" refer to political affiliations originating early in the French Revolutionary era of 1789–1799 and referred originally to the seating arrangements in the various legislative bodies of France. As seen from the Speaker's seat at the front of the Assembly, the aristocracy sat on the right (traditionally the seat of honor) and the commoners sat on the left, hence the terms right-wing politics and left-wing politics.
Originally, the defining point on the ideological spectrum was the Ancien Régime ("old order"). "The Right" thus implied support for aristocratic or royal interests and the church, while "The Left" implied support for republicanism, secularism and civil liberties.[4] Because the political franchise at the start of the revolution was relatively narrow, the original "Left" represented mainly the interests of the bourgeoisie, the rising capitalist class (with notable exceptions such as the proto-communist Gracchus Babeuf). Support for laissez-faire commerce and free markets were expressed by politicians sitting on the left because these represented policies favorable to capitalists rather than to the aristocracy, but outside parliamentary politics these views are often characterized as being on the Right.
The reason for this apparent contradiction lies in the fact that those "to the left" of the parliamentary left, outside official parliamentary structures (such as the sans-culottes of the French Revolution), typically represent much of the working class, poor peasantry and the unemployed. Their political interests in the French Revolution lay with opposition to the aristocracy and so they found themselves allied with the early capitalists. However, this did not mean that their economic interests lay with the laissez-faire policies of those representing them politically.
As capitalist economies developed, the aristocracy became less relevant and were mostly replaced by capitalist representatives. The size of the working class increased as capitalism expanded and began to find expression partly through trade unionist, socialist, anarchist and communist politics rather than being confined to the capitalist policies expressed by the original "left". This evolution has often pulled parliamentary politicians away from laissez-faire economic policies, although this has happened to different degrees in different countries.
Thus the word "Left" in American political parlance may refer to "liberalism" and be identified with the Democratic Party, whereas in a country such as France these positions would be regarded as relatively more right-wing and "left" is more likely to refer to "socialist" positions rather than "liberal" ones.
Academic investigation[edit]
For almost a century, social scientists have considered the problem of how best to describe political variation.
Leonard W. Ferguson[edit]
In 1950, Leonard W. Ferguson analyzed political values using ten scales measuring attitudes toward: birth control, capital punishment, censorship, communism, evolution, law, patriotism, theism, treatment of criminals and war. Submitting the results to factor analysis, he was able to identify three factors, which he named religionism, humanitarianism and nationalism. He defined religionism as belief in God and negative attitudes toward evolution and birth control; humanitarianism as being related to attitudes opposing war, capital punishment and harsh treatment of criminals; and nationalism as describing variation in opinions on censorship, law, patriotism and communism.
This system was derived empirically, as rather than devising a political model on purely theoretical grounds and testing it, Ferguson's research was exploratory. As a result of this method, care must be taken in the interpretation of Ferguson's three factors, as factor analysis will output an abstract factor whether an objectively real factor exists or not.[5] Although replication of the nationalism factor was inconsistent, the finding of religionism and humanitarianism had a number of replications by Ferguson and others.[6][7]
Hans Eysenck[edit]
Shortly afterward, Hans Eysenck began researching political attitudes in Great Britain. He believed that there was something essentially similar about the National Socialists (Nazis) on the one hand and the communists on the other, despite their opposite positions on the left–right axis. As Hans Eysenck described in his 1956 book Sense and Nonsense in Psychology,[8] Eysenck compiled a list of political statements found in newspapers and political tracts and asked subjects to rate their agreement or disagreement with each. Submitting this value questionnaire to the same process of factor analysis used by Ferguson, Eysenck drew out two factors, which he named "Radicalism" (R-factor) and "Tender-Mindedess" (T-factor).
Such analysis produces a factor whether or not it corresponds to a real-world phenomenon and so caution must be exercised in its interpretation. While Eysenck's R-factor is easily identified as the classical "left–right" dimension, the T-factor (representing a factor drawn at right angles to the R-factor) is less intuitive, as high-scorers favored pacifism, racial equality, religious education and restrictions on abortion, while low-scorers had attitudes more friendly to militarism, harsh punishment, easier divorce laws and companionate marriage.
Despite the difference in methodology, location and theory, the results attained by Eysenck and Ferguson matched. Simply rotating Eysenck's two factors 45 degrees renders the same factors of religionism and humanitarianism identified by Ferguson in America.[9]
Eysenck's dimensions of R and T were found by factor analyses of values in Germany and Sweden,[10] France[9] and Japan.[11]
One interesting result Eysenck noted in his 1956 work was that in the United States and Great Britain, most of the political variance was subsumed by the left/right axis, while in France the T-axis was larger and in the Middle East the only dimension to be found was the T-axis: "Among mid-Eastern Arabs it has been found that while the tough-minded/tender-minded dimension is still clearly expressed in the relationships observed between different attitudes, there is nothing that corresponds to the radical-conservative continuum".[9]
Relationship between Eysenck's political views and political research[edit]
Eysenck's political views related to his research: Eysenck was an outspoken opponent of what he perceived as the authoritarian abuses of the left and right and accordingly he believed that with this T axis he had found the link between nazism and communism. According to Eysenck, members of both ideologies were tough-minded. Central to Eysenck's thesis was the claim that tender-minded ideologies were democratic and friendly to human freedoms, while tough-minded ideologies were aggressive and authoritarian, a claim that is open to political criticism. In this context, Eysenck carried out studies on nazism and communist groups, claiming to find members of both groups to be more "dominant" and more "aggressive" than control groups.[9]
Eysenck left Nazi Germany to live in Britain and was not shy in attacking Stalinism, noting the anti-Semitic prejudices of the Russian government, the luxurious lifestyles of the Soviet Union leadership and the Orwellian "doublethink" of East Germany's naming itself the German Democratic Republic despite being "one of the most undemocratic regimes in the world today".[12] While Eysenck was an opponent of Nazism, his relationship with fascist organizations was more complex. Eysenck himself lent theoretical support to the English National Party (which also opposed "Hitlerite" Nazism) and was interviewed in the first issue of their journal The Beacon in relation to his controversial views on relative intelligence between different races.[13][14] At one point during the interview, Eysenck was asked whether or not he was of Jewish origin before the interviewer proceeded.[15] His political allegiances were called into question by other researchers, notably Steven Rose, who alleged that his scientific research was used for political purposes.[16][17]
Subsequent criticism of Eysenck's research[edit]
Eysenck's conception of tough-mindedness has been criticized for a number of reasons.
Virtually no values were found to load only on the tough/tender dimension.
The interpretation of tough-mindedness as a manifestation of "authoritarian" versus tender-minded "democratic" values was incompatible with the Frankfurt school's single-axis model, which conceptualized authoritarianism as being a fundamental manifestation of conservatism and many researchers took issue with the idea of "left-wing authoritarianism".[18]
The theory which Eysenck developed to explain individual variation in the observed dimensions, relating tough-mindedness to extroversion and psychoticism, returned ambiguous research results.[19]
Eysenck's finding that Nazis and communists were more tough-minded than members of mainstream political movements was criticised on technical grounds by Milton Rokeach.[20]
Eysenck's method of analysis involves the finding of an abstract dimension (a factor) that explains the spread of a given set of data (in this case, scores on a political survey). This abstract dimension may or may not correspond to a real material phenomenon and obvious problems arise when it is applied to human psychology. The second factor in such an analysis (such as Eysenck's T-factor) is the second best explanation for the spread of the data, which is by definition drawn at right angles to the first factor. While the first factor, which describes the bulk of the variation in a set of data, is more likely to represent something objectively real, subsequent factors become more and more abstract. Thus one would expect to find a factor that roughly corresponds to "left" and "right", as this is the dominant framing for politics in our society, but the basis of Eysenck's "tough/tender-minded" thesis (the second, T-factor) may well represent nothing beyond an abstract mathematical construct. Such a construct would be expected to appear in factor analysis whether or not it corresponded to something real, thus rendering Eysenck's thesis unfalsifiable through factor analysis.[21][22][23]
Milton Rokeach[edit]
Dissatisfied with Hans J. Eysenck's work, Milton Rokeach developed his own two-axis model of political values in 1973, basing this on the ideas of freedom and equality, which he described in his book, The Nature of Human Values.[24]
Milton Rokeach claimed that the defining difference between the left and right was that the left stressed the importance of equality more than the right. Despite his criticisms of Eysenck's tough-tender axis, Rokeach also postulated a basic similarity between communism and nazism, claiming that these groups would not value freedom as greatly as more conventional social democratics, democratic socialists and capitalists would and he wrote that "the two value model presented here most resembles Eysenck's hypothesis".[24]
To test this model, Milton Rokeach and his colleagues used content analysis on works exemplifying nazism (written by Adolf Hitler), communism (written by Vladimir Lenin), capitalism (by Barry Goldwater) and socialism (written by various socialist authors). This method has been criticized for its reliance on the experimenter's familiarity with the content under analysis and its dependence on the researcher's particular political outlooks.
Multiple raters made frequency counts of sentences containing synonyms for a number of values identified by Rokeach—including freedom and equality—and Rokeach analyzed these results by comparing the relative frequency rankings of all the values for each of the four texts:
Socialists (socialism) — freedom ranked 1st, equality ranked 2nd
Hitler (Nazism) – freedom ranked 16th, equality ranked 17th
Goldwater (capitalism) — freedom ranked 1st, equality ranked 16th
Lenin (communism) — freedom ranked 17th, equality ranked 1st
Later studies using samples of American ideologues[25] and American presidential inaugural addresses attempted to apply this model.[26]
Later research[edit]
In further research,[27] Hans J. Eysenck refined his methodology to include more questions on economic issues. Doing this, he revealed a split in the left–right axis between social policy and economic policy, with a previously undiscovered dimension of socialism-capitalism (S-factor).
While factorially distinct from Eysenck's previous R factor, the S-factor did positively correlate with the R-factor, indicating that a basic left–right or right–left tendency underlies both social values and economic values, although S tapped more into items discussing economic inequality and big business, while R relates more to the treatment of criminals and to sexual issues and military issues.
Most research and political theory since this time has replicated the factors shown above.[citation needed]
Another replication came from Ronald Inglehart's research into national opinions based on the World Values Survey, although Inglehart's research described the values of countries rather than individuals or groups of individuals within nations. Inglehart's two-factor solution took the form of Ferguson's original religionism and humanitarianism dimensions; Inglehart labelled them "secularism–traditionalism", which covered issues of tradition and religion, like patriotism, abortion, euthanasia and the importance of obeying the law and authority figures, and "survivalism – self expression", which measured issues like everyday conduct and dress, acceptance of diversity (including foreigners) and innovation and attitudes towards people with specific controversial lifestyles such as homosexuality and vegetarianism, as well as willingness to engage in political activism. See[dead link][28] for Inglehart's national chart.
Other double-axis models[edit]
Nolan: economic freedom, personal freedom[edit]
Nolan chart
Main article: Nolan chart
The Nolan chart was created by libertarian David Nolan. This chart shows what he considers as "economic freedom" (issues like taxation, free trade and free enterprise) on the horizontal axis and what he considers as "personal freedom" (issues like drug legalization, abortion and the draft) on the vertical axis. This puts left-wingers in the left quadrant, libertarians in the top, right-wingers in the right and what Nolan originally named populists in the bottom.
Political compass[edit]
A chart proposed by the Political Compass Organization
Main article: Political compass
The political compass has two axes. One represents economic issues as right-vs-left. The other represents issues of freedom, or social issues, as authoritarian-vs-libertarian. One can determine their position on the political compass through an online quiz by the same name.
Greenberg and Jonas: left–right, ideological rigidity[edit]
In a 2003 Psychological Bulletin paper,[29] Jeff Greenberg and Eva Jonas posit a model comprising the standard left–right axis and an axis representing ideological rigidity. For Greenberg and Jonas, ideological rigidity has "much in common with the related concepts of dogmatism and authoritarianism" and is characterized by "believing in strong leaders and submission, preferring one’s own in-group, ethnocentrism and nationalism, aggression against dissidents, and control with the help of police and military". Greenberg and Jonas posit that high ideological rigidity can be motivated by "particularly strong needs to reduce fear and uncertainty" and is a primary shared characteristic of "people who subscribe to any extreme government or ideology, whether it is right-wing or left-wing".
Pournelle: liberty–control, irrationalism–rationalism[edit]
A recreation of the Inglehart–Welzel cultural map of the world based on the World Values Survey
Main article: Pournelle chart
This very distinct two-axis model was created by Jerry Pournelle in 1963 for his doctoral dissertation in political science. The Pournelle chart has liberty on one axis, with those on the left seeking freedom from control or protections for social deviance and those on the right emphasizing state authority or protections for norm enforcement (farthest right being state worship, farthest left being the idea of a state as the "ultimate evil"). The other axis is rationalism, defined here as the belief in planned social progress, with those higher up believing that there are problems with society that can be rationally solved and those lower down skeptical of such approaches.
Inglehart: traditionalist–secular and self expressionist–survivalist[edit]
In its 4 January 2003 issue, The Economist discussed a chart,[dead link][28] proposed by Dr. Ronald Inglehart and supported by the World Values Survey (associated with the University of Michigan), to plot cultural ideology onto two dimensions. On the y-axis it covered issues of tradition and religion, like patriotism, abortion, euthanasia and the importance of obeying the law and authority figures. At the bottom of the chart is the traditionalist position on issues like these (with loyalty to country and family and respect for life considered important), while at the top is the secular position. The x-axis deals with self-expression, issues like everyday conduct and dress, acceptance of diversity (including foreigners) and innovation, and attitudes towards people with specific controversial lifestyles such as vegetarianism, as well as willingness to engage in political activism. At the right of the chart is the open self-expressionist position, while at the left is its opposite position, which Dr. Inglehart calls survivalist. This chart not only has the power to map the values of individuals, but also to compare the values of people in different countries. Placed on this chart, European Union countries in continental Europe come out on the top right, Anglophone countries on the middle right, Latin American countries on the bottom right, African, Middle Eastern and South Asian countries on the bottom left and ex-Communist countries on the top left.
Mitchell: Eight Ways to Run the Country[edit]
Mitchell's Eight Political Americans
Mitchell's Eight Ways
In 2006, Brian Patrick Mitchell identified four main political traditions in Anglo-American history based on their regard for kratos (defined as the use of force) and archē or "archy" (defined as the recognition of rank).[30] Mitchell grounded the distinction of archy and kratos in the West's historical experience of church and state, crediting the collapse of the Christian consensus on church and state with the appearance of four main divergent traditions in Western political thought:
Republican constitutionalism = pro archy, anti kratos
Libertarian individualism = anti archy, anti kratos
Democratic progressivism = anti archy, pro kratos
Plutocratic nationalism = pro archy, pro kratos
Mitchell charts these traditions graphically using a vertical axis as a scale of kratos/akrateia and a horizontal axis as a scale of archy/anarchy. He places democratic progressivism in the lower left, plutocratic nationalism in the lower right, republican constitutionalism in the upper right, and libertarian individualism in the upper left. The political left is therefore distinguished by its rejection of archy, while the political right is distinguished by its acceptance of archy. For Mitchell, anarchy is not the absence of government but the rejection of rank. Thus there can be both anti-government anarchists (Mitchell’s "libertarian individualists") and pro-government anarchists (Mitchell's "democratic progressives", who favor the use of government force against social hierarchies such as patriarchy). Mitchell also distinguishes between left-wing anarchists and right-wing anarchists, whom Mitchell renames "akratists" for their opposition to the government’s use of force.
From the four main political traditions, Mitchell identifies eight distinct political perspectives diverging from a populist center. Four of these perspectives (Progressive, Individualist, Paleoconservative, and Neoconservative) fit squarely within the four traditions; four others (Paleolibertarian, Theoconservative, Communitarian, and Radical) fit between the traditions, being defined by their singular focus on rank or force. Anthony Gregory of the Independent Institute credits Mitchell with "the best explanation of the political spectrum", saying he "makes sense of all the major mysteries".[31]
Spatial model[edit]
The spatial model of voting plots voters and candidates in a multi-dimensional space where each dimension represents a single political issue[32][33] (or sub-component of an issue).[34] Voters are then modeled as voting for the nearest candidates in this ideological space. The dimensions of this model can also be assigned to non-political properties of the candidates, such as perceived corruption, health, etc.[32]
Most of the other spectra in this article can then be considered projections of this multi-dimensional space onto a smaller number of dimensions.[35] For example, a study of German voters found that at least four dimensions were required to adequately represent all political parties.[35]
See also: Issue voting and Models of issue voting
Three-axis models[edit]
Three axis model of political ideologies with both moderate and radical versions and the goals of their policies
Vosem chart, a three-axis version of the Nolan chart
A multi-axis political chart, contrasting between libertarian and authoritarian socialism
One alternative spectrum offered by the conservative American Federalist Journal[36] accounts for only the "degree of government control" without consideration for any other social or political variable and thus places "fascism" (totalitarianism) at one extreme and "anarchism" (no government at all) at the other extreme.
The Vosem Chart, or Vosem Cube, is based on the Nolan Chart and adds a third axis for government, depicted three dimensionally, with eight discrete categories representing eight different political ideologies. Vosem is the Russian word for "eight."
Vikaas-Doolittle Political map
The Vikaas-Doolittle compass orients the political spectrum within three sociocultural axes: aesthetic vs linguistic, individualist vs collectivist, and low-context (stoic) vs high-context (dramatic). The map predicts the social behavior of an individual from their cultural orientation; for instance, a Puritan colonist would be linguistic-individualist-stoic; an early 20th Century Italian immigrant aesthetic-collectivist-dramatic; and an early 21st Century Latin immigrant lingusitic-collectivist-dramatic.
Other proposed dimensions[edit]
Other proposed axes include:
In 1998, political author Virginia Postrel, in her book The Future and Its Enemies, offered another single-axis spectrum that measures views of the future, contrasting stasists, who allegedly fear the future and wish to control it, and dynamists, who want the future to unfold naturally and without attempts to plan and control. The distinction corresponds to the utopian versus dystopian spectrum used in some theoretical assessments of liberalism and the book's title is borrowed from the work of the anti-utopian classic-liberal theorist Karl Popper.
Focus of political concern: communitarianism vs. individualism. These labels are preferred[37] to the loaded language of "totalitarianism" (anti-freedom) vs. "libertarianism" (pro-freedom), because one can have a political focus on the community without being totalitarian and undemocratic. Council communism is a political philosophy that would be counted as communitarian on this axis, but is not totalitarian or undemocratic.
Responses to conflict: according to the political philosopher Charles Blattberg, those who would respond to conflict with conversation should be considered as on the left, with negotiation as in the centre, and with force as on the right. See his essay "Political Philosophies and Political Ideologies".[38]
Role of the church: clericalism vs. anti-clericalism. This axis is less significant in the United States (where views of the role of religion tend to be subsumed into the general left–right axis) than in Europe (where clericalism versus anti-clericalism is much less correlated with the left–right spectrum).
Urban vs. rural: This axis is significant today in the politics of Europe, Australia and Canada. The urban vs. rural axis was equally prominent in the United States' political past, but its importance is debatable at present. In the late 18th century and early 19th century in the United States, it would have been described as the conflict between Hamiltonian Federalists and Jeffersonian Republicans.
Foreign policy: interventionism (the nation should exert power abroad to implement its policy) vs. non-interventionism (the nation should keep to its own affairs). Similarly, multilateralism (coordination of policies with other countries) vs. isolationism and unilateralism
Relations with individual states or groups of states may also be vital to party politics. During the Cold War, parties often had to choose a position on a scale between pro-American and pro-Soviet Union, although this could at times closely match a left–right spectrum. At other times in history relations with other powerful states has been important. In early Canadian history relations with Great Britain were a central theme, although this was not "foreign policy" but a debate over the proper place of Canada within the British Empire.
International action: multilateralism (states should cooperate and compromise) versus unilateralism (states have a strong, even unconditional, right to make their own decisions).
Political violence: pacifism (political views should not be imposed by violent force) vs. militancy (violence is a legitimate or necessary means of political expression). In North America, particularly in the United States, holders of these views are often referred to as "doves" and "hawks", respectively.
Foreign trade: globalization (world economic markets should become integrated and interdependent) vs. autarky (the nation or polity should strive for economic independence). During the early history of the Commonwealth of Australia, this was the major political continuum. At that time it was called free trade vs. protectionism.
Trade freedom vs. trade equity: free trade (businesses should be able trade across borders without regulations) vs. fair trade (international trade should be regulated on behalf of social justice).
Diversity: multiculturalism (the nation should represent a diversity of cultural ideas) vs. assimilationism or nationalism (the nation should primarily represent, or forge, a majority culture).
Participation: democracy (rule of the majority) vs. aristocracy (rule by the enlightened, elitism) vs. tyranny (total degradation of Aristocracy, ancient Greek philosophers such as Plato and Aristotle recognized tyranny as a state in which the tyrant is ruled by utter passion, and not reason like the philosopher, resulting in the tyrant pursuing his own desires rather than the common good.)
Freedom: positive liberty (having rights which impose an obligation on others) vs. negative liberty (having rights which prohibit interference by others).
Social power: totalitarianism vs. anarchism (control vs. no control) Analyzes the fundamental political interaction among people, and between individuals and their environment. Often posits the existence of a moderate system as existing between the two extremes.
Change: radicals (who believe in rapid change) and progressives (who believe in measured, incremental change) vs. conservatives (who believe in preserving the status quo) vs. reactionaries (who believe in changing things to a previous state).
Origin of state authority: popular sovereignty (the state as a creation of the people, with enumerated, delegated powers) vs. various forms of absolutism and organic state philosophy (the state as an original and essential authority) vs. the view held in anarcho-primitivism that "civilization originates in conquest abroad and repression at home".[39]
Levels of sovereignty: unionism vs. federalism vs. separatism; or centralism vs. regionalism. Especially important in societies where strong regional or ethnic identities are political issues.
European integration (in Europe): Euroscepticism vs. European federalism; nation state vs. multinational state.
Openness: closed (culturally conservative and protectionist) vs. open (socially liberal and globalist). Popularised as a concept by Tony Blair in 2007 and increasingly dominant in 21st century European and North American politics.[40][41]
Political-spectrum-based forecasts[edit]
As shown by Russian political scientist Stepan S. Sulakshin,[42] political spectra can be used as a forecasting tool. Sulakshin offered mathematical evidence that stable development (positive dynamics of the vast number of statistic indices) depends on the width of the political spectrum: if it is too narrow or too wide, stagnation or political disasters will result. Sulakshin also showed that in the short run the political spectrum determines the statistic indices dynamic and not vice versa.
Biological variables[edit]
Main article: Biology and political orientation
See also[edit]
Politics portal
Cleavage (politics)
Horseshoe theory
Index of politics articles
Left–right politics
NationStates (Jennifer Government)
Psephology
References[edit]
^ Jump up to: a b "The Traditional Political Spectrum". Retrieved 14 May 2016.
Jump up ^ Griffin, Roger (1995). Fascism. Oxford University Press. pp. 8,307. ISBN 978-0-19-289249-2.
Jump up ^ Eatwell, Roger (2003). "A 'Spectral-Syncretic' Approach to Fascism". In Kallis, Aristotle A. The fascism reader. Routledge. p. 71. ISBN 978-0-415-24359-9.
Jump up ^ Knapp, Andrew; Wright, Vincent (2006). The Government and Politics of France (5th ed.). Routledge. ISBN 0-415-35732-2.
Jump up ^ SAS(R) 3.11 Users Guide, Multivariate Analysis: Factor Analysis
Jump up ^ Ferguson, L.W. (1941). "The Stability of the Primary Social Attitudes: I. Religionism and Humanitarianism". Journal of Psychology. 12 (2): 283–8. doi:10.1080/00223980.1941.9917075.
Jump up ^ Kirkpatrick, C. (1949). "Religion and humanitarianism: a study of institutional implications". Psychological Monograph. 63 (9).
Jump up ^ "politics". Retrieved 5 May 2016.
^ Jump up to: a b c d Eysenck, H.J. (1956). Sense and nonsense in psychology. London: Penguin Books.
Jump up ^ Eysenck, H.J. (1953). "Primary social attitudes: A comparison of attitude patterns in England, Germany, and Sweden". Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology. 48 (4): 563–8. doi:10.1037/h0054347.
Jump up ^ Dator, J.A. (1969). "Measuring attitudes across cultures: A factor analysis of the replies of Japanese judges to Eysenck's inventory of conservative-progressive ideology". In Schubert, Glendon A.; Danelski, David Joseph. Comparative judicial behavior: cross-cultural studies of political decision-making in the East and West. Oxford University Press.
Jump up ^ Eysenck, H.J. (1981). "Left-Wing Authoritarianism: Myth or Reality?, by Hans J. Eysenck" Political Psychology
Jump up ^ "An Interview with Prof. Hans Eysenck", Beacon February 1977
Jump up ^ Stephen Rose, "Racism" Nature 14 September 1978, volume 275, page 86
Jump up ^ Billig, Micheal. (1979) "Psychology, Racism and Fascism", Chapter 6, footnote #70. Published by A.F. & R. Publications.
Jump up ^ Stephen Rose, "Racism Refuted", Nature 24 August 1978, volume 274, page 738
Jump up ^ Stephen Rose, "Racism", Nature 14 September 1978, volume 275, page 86
Jump up ^ Stone, W.F. (1980). "The myth of left-wing authoritarianism". Political Psychology. 2 (3/4): 3–19. doi:10.2307/3790998. JSTOR 3790998.
Jump up ^ Ray, J.J.; Bozek, R.S. (1981). "Authoritarianism and Eysenck's P-scale". Journal of Social Psychology. 113 (2): 231–4. doi:10.1080/00224545.1981.9924374.
Jump up ^ Rokeach, Milton; Hanley, Charles (March 1956). "Eysenck's Tender-Mindedness Dimension: A critique". Psychological Bulletin. 53 (2): 169–176. doi:10.1037/h0045968. PMID 13297921.
Jump up ^ Wiggins, J.S. (1973) Personality and Prediction: Principles of Personality Assessment. Addison-Wesley
Jump up ^ Lykken, D. T. (1971) Multiple factor analysis and personality research. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality 5: 161-170.
Jump up ^ Ray JJ (1973) Factor analysis and attitude scales. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology 9(3):11–12.
^ Jump up to: a b Rokeach, Milton (1973). The nature of human values. Free Press.
Jump up ^ Rous, G.L.; Lee, D.E. (Winter 1978). "Freedom and Equality: Two values of political orientation". Journal of Communication. 28: 45–51. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1978.tb01561.x.
Jump up ^ Mahoney, J.; Coogle, C.L.; Banks, P.D. (1984). "Values in presidential inaugural addresses: A test of Rokeach's two-factor theory of political ideology". Psychological Reports. 55 (3): 683–6. doi:10.2466/pr0.1984.55.3.683. Archived from the original on 14 May 2013.
Jump up ^ Eysenck, Hans (1976). "The structure of social attitudes". Psychological Reports. 39 (2): 463–6. doi:10.2466/pr0.1976.39.2.463. Archived from the original on 14 May 2013.
^ Jump up to: a b Inglehart, Ronald; Welzel, Christian. "The WVS Cultural Map of the World". World Values Survey. Retrieved December 18, 2013.
Jump up ^ Greenberg, J.; Jonas, E. (2003). "Psychological Motives and Political Orientation—The Left, the Right, and the Rigid: Comment on Jost et al. (2003)" (PDF). Psychological Bulletin. 129 (3): 376–382. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.376.
Jump up ^ Mitchell, Brian Patrick (2007). Eight ways to run the country: a new and revealing look at left and right. Greenwood Publishing. ISBN 978-0-275-99358-0.
Jump up ^ Gregory, Anthony, “What About the 'Real' Left?”, Lewrockwell.com, July 6, 2011.
^ Jump up to: a b Davis, Otto A.; Hinich, Melvin J.; Ordeshook, Peter C. (1970-01-01). "An Expository Development of a Mathematical Model of the Electoral Process". The American Political Science Review. 64 (2): 426–448. doi:10.2307/1953842. JSTOR 1953842. Since our model is multi-dimensional, we can incorporate all criteria which we normally associate with a citizen's voting decision process — issues, style, partisan identification, and the like.
Jump up ^ Stoetzer, Lukas F.; Zittlau, Steffen (2015-07-01). "Multidimensional Spatial Voting with Non-separable Preferences". Political Analysis. 23 (3): 415–428. doi:10.1093/pan/mpv013. ISSN 1047-1987. The spatial model of voting is the work horse for theories and empirical models in many fields of political science research, such as the equilibrium analysis in mass elections ... the estimation of legislators’ ideal points ... and the study of voting behavior. ... Its generalization to the multidimensional policy space, the Weighted Euclidean Distance (WED) model ... forms the stable theoretical foundation upon which nearly all present variations, extensions, and applications of multidimensional spatial voting rest.
Jump up ^ If voter preferences have more than one peak along a dimension, it needs to be decomposed into multiple dimensions that each only have a single peak. "We can satisfy our assumption about the form of the loss function if we increase the dimensionality of the analysis — by decomposing one dimension into two or more"
^ Jump up to: a b Alós-Ferrer, Carlos; Granić, Đura-Georg (2015-09-01). "Political space representations with approval data". Electoral Studies. 39: 56–71. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2015.04.003. The analysis reveals that the underlying political landscapes ... are inherently multidimensional and cannot be reduced to a single left-right dimension, or even to a two-dimensional space. ... From this representation, lower-dimensional projections can be considered which help with the visualization of the political space as resulting from an aggregation of voters' preferences. ... Even though the method aims to obtain a representation with as few dimensions as possible, we still obtain representations with four dimensions or more.
Jump up ^ "American Federalist Journal - News and opinion about politics, culture and current events". Retrieved 5 May 2016.
Jump up ^ Horrell, David (2005). "Paul Among Liberals and Communitarians". Pacifica. 18 (1): 33–52.
Jump up ^ Blattberg, Charles (2009). "Political Philosophies and Political Ideologies". Patriotic Elaborations: Essays in Practical Philosophy. McGill-Queen's University Press. SSRN 1755117  .
Jump up ^ Diamond, Stanley, In Search Of The Primitive: A Critique Of Civilization, (New Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1981), p. 1.
Jump up ^ "The new political divide". The Economist. 30 July 2016. Retrieved 24 April 2017.
Jump up ^ Pethokoukis, James (1 July 2016). "The Closed Party vs. the Open Party". American Enterprise Institute. Retrieved 24 April 2017.
Jump up ^ Sulakshin, S. (2010). "A Quantitative Political Spectrum and Forecasting of Social Evolution". International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences. 5 (4): 55–66.
External links[edit]
Idealog (Education+Quiz)
Politopia (Quiz)
The Political Compass
Redefining the Political Spectrum — The Rational Spectrum
World Values Survey, The WVS Cultural Map of the World (archived page)
[hide]
v
t
e
Political spectrum
Left–right
Post-left
Far-left
Hard left
Left
Centre-left
Centre
Radical
Centre-right
Right
Hard right
Far-right
Radical: United States - Europe
Anti-Stalinist left
Christian left
Jewish left
Muslim left
New left
Third Position
Third Way
Triangulation
Christian right
Hindutva
Islamism
New right
Other models:
Horseshoe theory
Nolan Chart
Open–closed
Political compass
Pournelle chart
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Political_spectrum&oldid=812539097"
Categories:
Elections
Political science terminology
Political spectrum
Hidden categories:
Use dmy dates from September 2016
All articles with unsourced statements
Articles with unsourced statements from March 2010
All articles with dead external links
Articles with dead external links from February 2016
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
In other projects
Wikimedia Commons
Languages
العربية
Asturianu
Bân-lâm-gú
Català
Dansk
Deutsch
Eesti
Ελληνικά
Español
Esperanto
Euskara
فارسی
Français
Galego
한국어
हिन्दी
Hrvatski
Bahasa Indonesia
Italiano
Қазақша
Kurdî
Latviešu
Magyar
Македонски
Nederlands
日本語
Polski
Português
Română
Русский
Slovenščina
Српски / srpski
Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски
Suomi
Svenska
Українська
Tiếng Việt
吴语
粵語
Zazaki
中文
Edit links
This page was last edited on 28 November 2017, at 11:58.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

key: html

type: local

value: div

attrs: id class

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

value: a

attrs: id class lang

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

attrs: href title

value: td

value: tr

value: li

attrs: href class title

values: /wiki/Hard-Left mw-redirect Hard-Left

values:
/wiki/Extreme_left
mw-redirect
Extreme left

values: float:right;clear:right;width:22.0em;margin:0 0 1.0em 1.0em;background:#f9f9f9;border:1px solid #aaa;padding:0.2em;border-spacing:0.4em 0;text-align:center;line-height:1.4em;font-size:88%;border-collapse:collapse; border-spacing:0px; border:none; width:100%; margin:0px; font-size:100%; clear:none; float:none

values: padding:0 0.1em 0.4em;padding-top:0.2em;text-align:left;padding:0.15em 0.3em 0.6em;text-align:center;

values: List of ruling political parties by country

values:
/wiki/Coordinate_axis
mw-redirect
Coordinate axis

values:
/wiki/Left%E2%80%93right_politics
mw-redirect
Left–right politics

values: Edit section: Historical origin of the terms

values:
/wiki/Political_franchise
mw-redirect
Political franchise

values: Edit section: Relationship between Eysenck's political views and political research

values:
/wiki/Democratic_ideologies
mw-redirect
Democratic ideologies

values:
/wiki/German_Democratic_Republic
mw-redirect
German Democratic Republic

values: Edit section: Subsequent criticism of Eysenck's research

values:
/wiki/Frankfurt_school
mw-redirect
Frankfurt school

values:
/wiki/Freedom_(political)
mw-redirect
Freedom (political)

values:
/wiki/Value_system
mw-redirect
Value system

values:
/wiki/Political_theory
mw-redirect
Political theory

values:
/wiki/Replication_(scientific_method)
mw-redirect
Replication (scientific method)

values: This claim needs references to reliable sources. (March 2010)

values:
noprint Inline-Template Template-Fact
white-space:nowrap;

values:
/wiki/Group_(sociology)
mw-redirect
Group (sociology)

values:
/wiki/Authority_figure
mw-redirect
Authority figure

values: Edit section: Nolan: economic freedom, personal freedom

values:
/wiki/Nolan_chart
mw-redirect
Nolan chart

values:
/wiki/David_Nolan_(Libertarian_Party)
mw-redirect
David Nolan (Libertarian Party)

values:
/wiki/Drug_legalization
mw-redirect
Drug legalization

values:
nofollow
external text
http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

values: Edit section: Greenberg and Jonas: left–right, ideological rigidity

values: Edit section: Pournelle: liberty–control, irrationalism–rationalism

values:
/wiki/Norm_(sociology)
mw-redirect
Norm (sociology)

values: Edit section: Inglehart: traditionalist–secular and self expressionist–survivalist

values:
/wiki/Self-expression_Values
mw-redirect
Self-expression Values

values: Edit section: Mitchell: Eight Ways to Run the Country

values: American Federalist Journal (page does not exist)

values:
/wiki/Federalist_Party_(United_States)
mw-redirect
Federalist Party (United States)

values:
/wiki/Party_politics
mw-redirect
Party politics

values:
/wiki/Canadian_history
mw-redirect
Canadian history

values:
/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Australia
mw-redirect
Commonwealth of Australia

values:
/wiki/Assimilation_(sociology)
mw-redirect
Assimilation (sociology)

values:
/wiki/Organic_state
mw-redirect
Organic state

values:
/wiki/European_federalism
mw-redirect
European federalism

values:
/wiki/Cultural_conservative
mw-redirect
Cultural conservative

values: Edit section: Political-spectrum-based forecasts

values: display:table-cell;padding:0.2em 0.2em 0.2em 0.3em;vertical-align:middle

values: margin:0.5em 0 0.5em 1em;border:solid #aaa 1px

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1037%2Fh0054347

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.2307%2F3790998

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.jstor.org/stable/3790998

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1037%2Fh0045968

values:
/wiki/PubMed_Identifier
mw-redirect
PubMed Identifier

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/13297921

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.2466%2Fpr0.1984.55.3.683

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.2466%2Fpr0.1976.39.2.463

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.2307%2F1953842

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.jstor.org/stable/1953842

values:
nofollow
external text
//doi.org/10.1093%2Fpan%2Fmpv013

values:
nofollow
external text
//www.worldcat.org/issn/1047-1987

values:
nofollow
external text
//ssrn.com/abstract=1755117

values: -moz-column-width: 30em; -webkit-column-width: 30em; column-width: 30em; list-style-type: decimal;

values:
nofollow
http://www.idealog.org/
external text

values:
nofollow
http://politicalcompass.org/
external text

values:
/wiki/Muslim_left
mw-redirect
Muslim left

values: nowraplinks hlist collapsible autocollapse navbox-inner

values: Category:Use dmy dates from September 2016

values: Category:All articles with unsourced statements

values: Category:Articles with unsourced statements from March 2010

values: Category:All articles with dead external links

values: Category:Articles with dead external links from February 2016

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values:
/wiki/Political_spectrum
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: Find background information on current events

values:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

values: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

values: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

values: About the project, what you can do, where to find things

values: A list of recent changes in the wiki [ctrl-alt-r]

values: portal navigation p-interaction p-interaction-label

values: List of all English Wikipedia pages containing links to this page [ctrl-alt-j]

values: Recent changes in pages linked from this page [ctrl-alt-k]

values:
/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard
Upload files [ctrl-alt-u]
u

values: A list of all special pages [ctrl-alt-q]

values: Permanent link to this revision of the page

values: Link to connected data repository item [ctrl-alt-g]

values: Printable version of this page [ctrl-alt-p]

values: portal navigation p-wikibase-otherprojects p-wikibase-otherprojects-label

values:
uls-settings-trigger
Language settings
0
button
true

values: طيف سياسي – Arabic

values: Πολιτικό φάσμα – Greek

values: طیف سیاسی – Persian

values: 정치적 스펙트럼 – Korean

values: राजनीतिक वर्णक्रम – Hindi

values: Саяси пайымдар – Kazakh

values: Политички спектар – Macedonian

values: 政治的スペクトル – Japanese

values: Политический спектр – Russian

values: Политички спектар – Serbian

values: Політичний спектр – Ukrainian

values: /static/images/wikimedia-button-1.5x.png 1.5x, /static/images/wikimedia-button-2x.png 2x

values: /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_132x47.png 1.5x, /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_176x62.png 2x

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Political_spectrum rootpage-Political_spectrum skin-vector action-view