NationStates Jolt Archive

I read about the political compass and the Pournelle chart. The Pournelle chart has one axis left and right, and one axis rationality vs. irrationality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pournelle_chart
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_compass

Now, Pournelle has a point. But he apparently tailor-made the chart to fit his own ideologies. I've come up with this idea:

Political ideologies could be classified using three variables: economic left and right, authoritarianism vs. libertarianism, and populism vs. intellectualism. Draw a circle; the radial coordinate represents populism/intellectualism, with populism in the center. Section the circle into four like a political compass: left and right economics, up and down authoritarianism. It's important only to produce four sections; the exact location is not important.

Populism is hard to define, because it apparently takes ideas from all parts of the spectrum. So, it has to be in the center of the circle, in the intersection of all four Political Compass classifications. Populism means anti-intellectualism and irrational justifications: religion, patriotism, simple solutions to complex problems since "we have a principle". It is appeal to emotion, and trying to apply logic and strict rules onto it misses the point. It may use any of the Political Compass ideologies.

Intellectualism is the opposite: an intellectualist claims that he has a perfect representation of the reality in his ideology. It isn't any more realistic either, since it's essentially claiming omniscience. Intellectualist philosophies are highly differentiated between left and right, anarchy and authoritarianism, and so on, necessarily. The different ideologies don't talk with each other, since they use incompatible language. "Class warfare" is another's "free market of labor".

Republicans would both near the center, in the authoritarian (right-wing moralist) area. Democrats would be spread along the populism axis on the left; they aren't liberals. Many would be in the intellectualist zone (the socialist political ideology is "always right").

Classifying Finnish parties would be difficult.

How about the British?

The diagram: http://img65.imageshack.us/my.php?image=polmap4pq.png

Well, I know one thing: If we used this one more often, no one would still argue that Socialism and Fascism were the same thing.

But in reality, in our modern democracies, you'd find most parties grouped together pretty closely. They don't differ that much.

I read about the political compass and the Pournelle chart. The Pournelle chart has one axis left and right, and one axis rationality vs. irrationality.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pournelle_chart
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_compass

Now, Pournelle has a point. But he apparently tailor-made the chart to fit his own ideologies. I've come up with this idea:

Political ideologies could be classified using three variables: economic left and right, authoritarianism vs. libertarianism, and populism vs. intellectualism. Draw a circle; the radial coordinate represents populism/intellectualism, with populism in the center. Section the circle into four like a political compass: left and right economics, up and down authoritarianism. It's important only to produce four sections; the exact location is not important.

Populism is hard to define, because it apparently takes ideas from all parts of the spectrum. So, it has to be in the center of the circle, in the intersection of all four Political Compass classifications. Populism means anti-intellectualism and irrational justifications: religion, patriotism, simple solutions to complex problems since "we have a principle". It is appeal to emotion, and trying to apply logic and strict rules onto it misses the point. It may use any of the Political Compass ideologies.

Intellectualism is the opposite: an intellectualist claims that he has a perfect representation of the reality in his ideology. It isn't any more realistic either, since it's essentially claiming omniscience. Intellectualist philosophies are highly differentiated between left and right, anarchy and authoritarianism, and so on, necessarily. The different ideologies don't talk with each other, since they use incompatible language. "Class warfare" is another's "free market of labor".

Republicans would both near the center, in the authoritarian (right-wing moralist) area. Democrats would be spread along the populism axis on the left; they aren't liberals. Many would be in the intellectualist zone (the socialist political ideology is "always right").

Classifying Finnish parties would be difficult.

How about the British?

The diagram: http://img65.imageshack.us/my.php?image=polmap4pq.png

I think you have an excellent starting point, but this takes me back to my studies of economics, as an undergrad. The problem is that you and I can only see in 2D, it would actually take 3D for the thng to work. For example, abortion may take you to the left, antiabortion to the right, like of small government down, like of big goverment up. However, you are then throwing in rationality, a third dimension that we cant really see, although we can comprehend it with difficulty. People's actual political views would be more of a "hill" effect, than a 2 dimensional incline. Does that make sense?

I really like this chart - it's more thorough and less simplistic than most others. I do have one suggestion though - scrap the circle and radial axis. Much as I like the idea of sociopolitical circle trigonometry, I think a simple non-curved 3D space with 3 perpendicular axes would be better. Just the normal x/y/z coordinate space used in high school algebra. It's much easier to visualize.

I really like this chart - it's more thorough and less simplistic than most others. I do have one suggestion though - scrap the circle and radial axis. Much as I like the idea of sociopolitical circle trigonometry, I think a simple non-curved 3D space with 3 perpendicular axes would be better. Just the normal x/y/z coordinate space used in high school algebra. It's much easier to visualize.
I also thought of that, but:


It has quantitative complexity. You could make precise distinctions between Political Compass categories, but that's not very useful - if you're interested in that, why not use PC itself? Three axes are not necessary for a qualitative distinction.
The angular coordinate is already useful.
The most important reason: populism is not an independent variable. The chart should make an argument in its geometry that all ideologies merge at populism, since populism is reactionary and may use any ideology to justify itself. Nazism is the archetypal example: socialist rhetoric to get worker support, authoritarian rhetoric as a staple.


But if you want to make it three-dimensional, use a cone instead of a cube. The "black hole" of irrationality would be the tip. The base, divided in a political compass, would be the base, representing the "perfect" intellectualist of ideologies.

One purpose for this chart is to represent the variation within parties.

I'd like to hear some ideas about the parties in various countries. I'm not a political scientist, so I don't have any data.

Finnish parties:

Coalition (Kokoomus) spread along the authoritarian/liberal coordinate, in the center of the radius (not populist, like Republicans)
Social Democrats in the blackish part of the state socialism sector; these have strong union connections and all "real" communists (read: hyperidealist kooks) say they're right-wingers, but they're not: they're willing to use right-wing ideas to further their cause, which is classical populism
Center (Keskusta) in the dead center or a bit up from it. This is a farmer party. They don't have an ideology.
Leftists in the far intellectualist area, between the state socialism and anarchistic areas.
Greens a bit below them
Christian Party in the authoritarian intellectualist area; the ideology that Christian values are "the thing" is infallible, and this places them in the intellectualist area.