Changes

The earliest known left-right classification was that of the [[National Assembly]] in [[France]] just before the [[French Revolution]].  Members who supported the monarchy, would sit towards the right. Those who had been offended by their own party would frequently stand up and walk over to the other side of the hall in order to make a political statement.   

The earliest known left-right classification was that of the [[National Assembly]] in [[France]] just before the [[French Revolution]].  Members who supported the monarchy, would sit towards the right. Those who had been offended by their own party would frequently stand up and walk over to the other side of the hall in order to make a political statement.   

Historian [[Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.]] has said the spectrum theory was "adequate to the political simplicities of the nineteenth century, when the Right meant those who wished to preserve the existing order and the Left meant those who wished to change it. But the twentieth century, here as elsewhere, introduced new ambiguities." <ref>[http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/schlesinger-notrightleft.html Not Right, Not Left, But a Vital Center], [[Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.]], ''New York Times Magazine'', April 4, 1948.</ref> In modern times, the left emphasizes [[collectivism|collective]] wisdom as a guiding force (see [[planned economy]]), while the right emphasizes individual rights (see [[ideological spectrum]]).

Historian [[Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.]] has said the spectrum theory was "adequate to the political simplicities of the nineteenth century, when the Right meant those who wished to preserve the existing order and the Left meant those who wished to change it. But the twentieth century, here as elsewhere, introduced new ambiguities." <ref>[http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/schlesinger-notrightleft.html Not Right, Not Left, But a Vital Center], [[Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.]], ''New York Times Magazine'', April 4, 1948.</ref> In modern times, the left emphasizes [[collectivism|collective]] wisdom as a guiding force (see [[planned economy]]), while the right emphasizes individual rights (see [[ideological spectrum]]).

This is in stark contrast to the liberal (and Communist) view which associates the "right" with Fascism and the "left" with Communism:

This is in stark contrast to the erroneous liberal (and Communist) view which associates the "right" with Fascism and the "left" with Communism:

*The rise of fascism and communism illustrated vividly the fallacies of the linear conception of Right and Left. In certain basic respects - a totalitarian state structure, a single party, a leader, a secret police, a hatred of political, cultural and intellectual freedom - fascism and communism are clearly more like each other than they are like anything in between. [http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/schlesinger-notrightleft.html]

*The rise of fascism and communism illustrated vividly the fallacies of the linear conception of Right and Left. In certain basic respects - a totalitarian state structure, a single party, a leader, a secret police, a hatred of political, cultural and intellectual freedom - fascism and communism are clearly more like each other than they are like anything in between. [http://www.writing.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/schlesinger-notrightleft.html]

==Definitions==

==Definitions==

Furthermore, the old fashioned left-right model is fatally flawed. The model implies that if you "go too far" (i.e., are consistent) with any political idea, you end up, in some inexplicable way, at [[totalitarianism]] or anarchism, or maybe both. Pursue conservative thought to its logical extreme, according to this model, and you somehow end up at fascism, which is national socialism, or white supremacy or some other authoritarian position. If you pursue liberal thought too far, you supposedly end up at socialism or communism. This is inconsistent, and it ignores large philosophical differences between, liberalism and communism, and conservatism and fascism.

Furthermore, the old fashioned left-right model is fatally flawed. The model implies that if you "go too far" (i.e., are consistent) with any political idea, you end up, in some inexplicable way, at [[totalitarianism]] or anarchism, or maybe both. Pursue conservative thought to its logical extreme, according to this model, and you somehow end up at fascism, which is national socialism, or white supremacy or some other authoritarian position. If you pursue liberal thought too far, you supposedly end up at socialism or communism. This is inconsistent, and it ignores large philosophical differences between, liberalism and communism, and conservatism and fascism.

==Extreme polarization==

==Extreme Polarization==

Dacher Keltner, assistant professor of psychology at the University of California at Berkeley, has found that people have a powerful tendency to exaggerate the views of their ideological opponents, seeing, on average, twice as much difference as actually exists.  Moreover, he has turned up this “imagined [[extremism]]” in a variety of settings, including conflicts over [[abortion]] rights, the interpretation of a racial incident, the attitudes of homosexuals and Christian fundamentalists and the choices of English professors toward use of the “Western Canon” in university classes.

Dacher Keltner, assistant professor of psychology at the University of California at Berkeley, has found that people have a powerful tendency to exaggerate the views of their ideological opponents, seeing, on average, twice as much difference as actually exists.  Moreover, he has turned up this “imagined [[extremism]]” in a variety of settings, including conflicts over [[abortion]] rights, the interpretation of a racial incident, the attitudes of homosexuals and Christian fundamentalists and the choices of English professors toward use of the “Western Canon” in university classes.

Partisans and nonpartisans in political disputes, Keltner's study finds, seriously overestimate the polarization between the two sides. Although a tendency to demonize one’s opponents is not a new understanding, Keltner’s work breaks new ground in being able to measure the extent of the effect by gathering hard data on actual versus perceived differences among the parties to a dispute as well as among neutral observers. <ref>Patricia McBroom, University of California, Berkeley, News Release, 1/4/97, ''Political attitudes in the U.S. are exaggerated, according to UC Berkeley psychologist in studies of “imagined Extremism.”''</ref>

Partisans and nonpartisans in political disputes, Keltner's study finds, seriously overestimate the polarization between the two sides. Although a tendency to demonize one’s opponents is not a new understanding, Keltner’s work breaks new ground in being able to measure the extent of the effect by gathering hard data on actual versus perceived differences among the parties to a dispute as well as among neutral observers. <ref>[http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CB4QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.solargeneral.com%2Flibrary%2Fwatchdogs.pdf&ei=wT48TJ27OIGesQPh6OicBg&usg=AFQjCNH6klBgCEvVYd-hqyzUGyy2kBDAIA&sig2=YQgHfGz4bm2ksQ3RTWyFYQ Patricia McBroom, UC, Berkeley, News Release, 1/4/97, Political attitudes in the U.S. are exaggerated,<br /> according to UC Berkeley psychologist in studies of “Imagined Extremism.”] [http://www.solargeneral.com/library/watchdogs.pdf SolarGeneral.com; Library]</ref>

==Notes==

==References==

<references/>

<references/>