==Definitions==

Traditionally political scientists have defined the left-right '''political spectrum''' by saying that politics on the 'right' usually supports the traditional institutions and values of a society, while politics on the 'left' usually favors challenging traditional institutions and values.<ref>H. Winter and T. Bellows (1997), Conflict and Compromise: An Introduction to Political Science, 8th ed., Ch. 3. Longman, Inc.</ref>,<ref>S. Tansey (2000), Politics: the Basics, 2nd ed., Ch. 4. Routledge, Inc.</ref>

An alternative definition which some political scientists say better describes current political differences states that those on the 'left' tend to favor bigger government, egalitarianism, and collectivism while those on the 'right' favored smaller government, free markets, and individualism.<ref>Ed Poor's high-school teacher</ref>

Yet another definition tries to describe current political differences by saying that the 'left' tends to favor personal freedoms, while the 'right' tends to favor economic freedoms.<ref>Somebody named Nolan?</ref>

==Criticisms of a one-dimensional view==

Many people reject a one-dimensional view of the political spectrum.

:"The old one-dimensional categories of 'right' and 'left', established for the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly of 1789, are overly simplistic for today's complex political landscape." <ref>[http://www.politicalcompass.org/ The Political Compass] </ref>

For example, [[libertarian]]s say that their point of view - advocating personal freedom in all its forms, as long as it does not conflict with the freedom of others, is '''not''' a left-wing or right-wing position. Advocating freedom sometimes leads them to take positions that are usually considered [[rightist | right-wing]] (for example, defending a worker's right not to join a labor union) but at other times leads them to take positions that are usually considered [[leftist | left-wing]] (for example, defending gay rights).
--[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 08:03, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Political Spectrum

2007-04-10T15:48:20Z

Redblue: /* Wow, that was a brilliant deletion of all content from this page */

Talk:Political Spectrum

2007-04-10T12:57:53Z

Redblue: checking whether refs work on draft page

Talk:Political spectrum/movements

2007-04-10T12:55:39Z

Redblue: /* Movement */

==Movements==

* [[Democrat]]

* [[Socialist]]

* [[Social democracy]]

* [[Green parties]]

* [[Communist]]

* [[Anarchist]]

* [[Libertarian]]

* [[Christian democracy]]

* [[Republican]]

* [[Nationalism]]

* [[Monarchism]]

* [[Fascist]]

Talk:Political spectrum/definitions

2007-04-10T12:46:49Z

Redblue: /* Definitions */

==Definitions==

Political scientists' definition of the political spectrum classifies some political positions as leftist or rightist. Politics on the 'right' usually support the traditional institutions and values of a society. Politics on the 'left' usually favor challenging traditional institutions and values.<ref>H. Winter and T. Bellows (1997), Conflict and Compromise: An Introduction to Political Science, 8th ed., Ch. 3. Longman, Inc.</ref>,<ref>S. Tansey (2000), Politics: the Basics, 2nd ed., Ch. 4. Routledge, Inc.</ref>

==Criticisms of a one-dimensional view==

Many people reject a one-dimensional view of the political spectrum.

:"The old one-dimensional categories of 'right' and 'left', established for the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly of 1789, are overly simplistic for today's complex political landscape." <ref>[http://www.politicalcompass.org/ The Political Compass] </ref>

For example, [[libertarian]]s say that their point of view - advocating personal freedom in all its forms, as long as it does not conflict with the freedom of others, is '''not''' a left-wing or right-wing position. Advocating freedom sometimes leads them to take positions that are usually considered [[rightist | right-wing]] (for example, defending a worker's right not to join a labor union) but at other times leads them to take positions that are usually considered [[leftist | left-wing]] (for example, defending gay rights).
--[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 08:03, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Political Spectrum

2007-04-10T12:15:25Z

Redblue:

=Draft=
{{Talk:Political spectrum/usage}}
{{Talk:Political spectrum/definitions}}
{{Talk:Political spectrum/origin}}
{{Talk:Political spectrum/history}}
{{Talk:Political spectrum/movements}}

=Discussion=

==Proposed section headings==

*Definition
*Origin
*Contemporary US usage
*Criticisms of one-dimensional viewpoint
*History
*See also: political movements

==Alternative section headings==

*Contemporary US usage
*Origin
*Definition in political science
*Criticisms of one-dimensional viewpoint
*History
*See also: political movements

In spite of all the argument, it seems we mostly agree what to put in those sections.
What's been so controversial is which aspects to emphasize. So a good arrangement of sections
would be very useful. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 07:44, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

----
*The old one-dimensional categories of 'right' and 'left', established for the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly of 1789, are overly simplistic for today's complex political landscape. For example, who are the 'conservatives' in today's Russia? Are they the unreconstructed Stalinists, or the reformers who have adopted the right-wing views of conservatives like Margaret Thatcher ? On the standard left-right scale, how do you distinguish leftists like Stalin and Gandhi? It's not sufficient to say that Stalin was simply more left than Gandhi. There are fundamental political differences between them that the old categories on their own can't explain. Similarly, we generally describe social reactionaries as 'right-wingers', yet that leaves left-wing reactionaries like Robert Mugabe and Pol Pot off the hook. [http://www.politicalcompass.org/]

Any ideas? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:56, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:These are some vivid and timely illustrations of the problem. While the idea has worked as a sort of shorthand for condensing substantive analysis, the problem stems from treating it as a doctrinal truth. This wouldn't be a problem if it was used comparatively after surveying different issues, ideas, groups, or individuals, but that is not what happens. It's used as the starting point for any discussion and analysis. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:08, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Some sort of y and z dimensions to the political spectrum could be explained - personal freedom vs. economic freedom?

PS: Does this mean that PF Fox can call the Nazis right wing now :-p ? [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

*The '''political spectrum''' of contemporary U.S. politics places [[liberal]]s such as [[Democrats]] on the left and [[conservative]]s such as [[Republicans]] on the right.
Neither party enjoys being compared to the Communist left or the Nazi right, but both seem to get mileage out of using such a comparison for their political opponents. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:06, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::Of course, that's why we need a definition of the political spectrum (what, if anything, do Dems/Reps have in common with Commies/Nazis), which is why I wrote the comment mentioned below. So I am going to include my suggested distinctions now on the political spectrum page... --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 06:55, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:There's a long comment at [[Talk:Rightist]] which indicates the need for a merge. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:45, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*'''I disagree.''' Respectfully. Even though actions are being taken without consult with the other Sysops or users, in a most disrespectful way. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
**Nothing has developed at [[Leftist]] or [[Rightist]] other than the typical namecalling without any real efforts to give a valid definition. Then we have the argument that this abuse has occured for decades in other print publications, so why shouldn't we just continue it. The ''New York Times'', for example reported as late as 1912 that a highly sophisticated civilization existed on Mars; and the ''New York Times'' certainly is as credible as source as Merriam Websters. Again we are faced with the same dilemma: this is only a theory and should be properly identified as a theory. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:05, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
***It's not a [[theory]], it's a [[definition]]. There's nothing to test about it, it's just a (very imperfect) way of classifying (some, not all) political viewpoints. 'Red' state is not a perfect description of politics in Texas, just like 'red' couch is not a perfect description of the color of the furniture in your livingroom. Would you say that describing some couches as red, and other couches as blue, is 'just a theory, and should be properly identified as a theory'? --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 04:17, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Nolan chart==
[[Image:Nolan-chart.svg|right|thumb|A 2-d view of politics]]
*The one-dimensional "left versus right" model of political thought is pervasive in American society today. It's what was originally taught to me in high school, though there were two distinct variations of this model. The first, a "liberal-centric" model, divided [[politics]] between those on the "[[left]]" ([[liberals]] and [[radicals]]) and those on the "[[right]]" (conservatives and [[reactionaries]]) and posited that those on the "left" favored change and [[progress]] while those of the right favored [[tradition]]al and the s[[tatus quo]]. The second, a more "conservative-centric" model, divided politics between those on the "left" (liberals, [[socialist]]s, [[communist]]s) and those on the "right" ([[conservative]]s and [[libertarian]]s) and posited that those on the left favored (to varying degrees) [[bigger government]], [[egalitarianism]], and [[collectivism]] while those on the "right" favored [[smaller government]], [[free market]]s, and [[individualism]]. [http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-cjQ4r_Y_cqXPXpxyIWQePYrgXHbB?tag=libertarian]

The Nolan chart (who was Nolan?) could be a great topic for another page... --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 08:43, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, his chart is "on the right". :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== A Matter of Common Usage ==

I'm sorry, but this is simply nonsense. No, "left" and "right" are not always exact terms when they're used in the context of politics, but neither is "liberal" or "conservative" and you guys seem perfectly willing to use those terms, even going so far as to set up separate entries for "liberal" and "conservative." As I've already observed to Ed Poor, the entry on Communism plainly states that "Communism is an economic system, social organization, and LEFTIST political movement." Why, if you're willing to allow a statement about Communism being "leftist" to stand, are you squeamish about applying "right wing" to the Nazis?

They were considered "right wing" in the Nazi era in Germany. They have been referred to as "right wing" since by historians. Diarists of that time referred to them as "right wing," journalists, travel books, critics of the Nazis, supporters of the Nazis, all referred to them as "right wing." Attempting to remove that label is nothing more or less than historical revisionism, and since the term "leftist" has remained in the reference to "Communism" even after I've pointed it out, it is decidedly suspect and one-sided revisionism.

The arguments I've encountered for not applying the term "right wing" to the Nazis are an illustration of just how ridiculous is this attempt to change common usage. The Nazis rose as a response to many of the liberal policies of the Weimar Republic, the emacipation of the Jews, the increasing freedoms enjoyed by women, the rise of avant garde artists. Cramming this reality into the argument that "the Nazis weren't right wing" requires misrepresenting history, figuring out some way that the Nazis DIDN'T oppose the Weimar Republic. Thus, I've been told that the Weimar Era didn't end until 1939 and been offered a fudged quote from Albert Speer to support a claim that's not just dubious but positively surrealistic. Doesn't it give you pause that this silliness is the only way this rejection of the term "right wing" can be defended?

These objections to the "political spectrum model" come across here as simply an excuse for derrailing political discussions heading in directions you dislike into long and pointless quibbles. Words have meanings, folks. What those meanings are generally depends on common usage. That's how language works. Attempts to alter common usage are almost always less about precision than they are about fulfilling a political or religious agenda.

Give up using the words "conservative" and "liberal" and maybe, just MAYBE your arguments about the words "left" and "right" will begin to have some merit. But of course you all know as well as I do that's not going to happen. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:You made a good point, which I have added to the article. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Political_spectrum&diff=95340&oldid=95045] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:54, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Calling Nazi's right-wing, was a contrivance of the left. A pejorative idea, to diminish Conservatives, the right wing. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 13:01, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Then every journalist, every historian, every writer of travel books, every contemporary observer of Nazi Germany, every respected writer who's written about them since were and are all part of "the left." You sure you want to stick with this claim? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:09, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Yeah, like suspecting all of the above is a bad thing? Not in my world! "Respected" writers are like nattering nabobs of dissent. "Conventional Wisdom" is neither. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 14:23, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Riiiiiigggghhhht TK... It's ALL a commie plot involving William Shirer, Hugh Trevor-Roper, Milton Meyer, Victor Klemperer, Walter Cronkite, the publishers of Fodors, anybody for or against the Nazis who kept a diary at the time, and every journalist who covered them (including the guys who wrote for TIME.) --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Henry Luce would have fired most of 'em. Try to think for yourself, not pay so much attention to people you think are icons. ;-) Time isn't considered much of a source, outside of Liberal circles. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 14:30, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::hitler and stalin were buddies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact . [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 14:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::*A Socialist, by any other name, is still a Socialist. A dictator by any other name, is still a dictator. A thug is still a thug, as time goes by......... --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 14:34, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::So were Saddam Hussein and Donald Rumsfeld [http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/]. That is also of no relevance but interesting all the same.
:::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 14:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*I beleive using the word "buddies" is inappropriate. Now, I would have to check with Don, but I don't think they were actual buddies....--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 14:40, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::TK says: "Henry Luce would have fired most of 'em." LOL! Then why didn't he? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:42, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Jaques says "Hitler and Stalin were buddies." Briefly. Hitler and Hirohito were "buddies" for the duration of the war, so I guess the next step in this revisionism is for you guys to claim that Hitler wasn't a racist. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:42, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Hitler was indeed an out-and-out racist. And a Socialist. Hence the "National Socialist Party", and their style of governing, and the welfare state they used to control the masses. Same as the New Deal eventually led to a welfare class in the United States, one used to manipulate the vote, quite successfully. Not exactly "new" ideas. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 14:45, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Maybe part of the problem is that the European right wing is different than the American right wing...European conservativism and American conservativism are just really different animals. European conservativism is statist, elitist, and monarchical, and developed out of a rejection of the classical liberal tradition. American conservativism is individualist, democratic, and republican, because "classical liberalism" is that way. The Nazis were definately a "rightist" party, and when they first took control of the government, they had to do it in coalition with the DNVP, a party on the right that was nationalistic and monarchical. That doesn't mean that they're anything like the American rightwing. But they definately weren't socialist. Any socialist elements in the Nazi party were destroyed with the Strasser purge. And there was already a welfare state in Germany before the Nazis..Bismarck introduced all sorts of social welfare programs--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 14:47, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::TK have you ready ANY books or contemporary accounts of the Third Reich -- or are you just depending on what your favorite websites tell you? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:48, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Stalin was pretty racsist himself.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 14:50, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*You are impertinent, P.F. Fox. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 14:52, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I am well informed, TK, and well read. Anyone who imagines that Henry Luce would have fired a reporter for referring to the Nazis as "right wing" is not very well informed.

:::From Time Magazine (August 8, 1932):

:::"There will be 607 Deputies in the new Reichstag, largest, in German history. Simplifying the returns, it means that the Nazis and other Right Wing Parties will have a total of 277 seats." --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*That means nothing. How parties were characterized in the 1930's especially European political parties, had and has little to do with reality. It would be the same thing to call the Libertarian Party more like the Republican Party, or even the Democratic. While simplistically one could make some comparisons, but overall, highly inaccurate. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds... Ralph Waldo Emerson --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 15:18, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::How parties were characterized in the 1930s had much more to do with the reality of that time than how someone plainly unfamiliar with that era and with a political axe to grind characterizes them over 70 years later. What you and others here are trying to do is change the common usage of the term "right wing" that has been in effect from the 30s TO THE PRESENT. And it's interesting to note that where you were earlier stoutly declaring that "Henry Luce would have fired" reporters who referred to the Nazis as right wing, you are now denouncing his agreement with that assessment as meaningless. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*I see. So Socialism is a right-wing deal? Back then? No? Both? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 15:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::No, Socialistm is not "a right-wing deal." And the Nazis were not Socialists. Have you read ANY books on this subject? If not, don't you think that you should? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:02, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==A cultural difference==
In the United States, the term ''Right'' particularly became disabused because of its European origin. Originally it was associated with a titled nobility. No such thing ever existed in the United States, and in fact was prohibited by the United States Constititution. Hence, Europeans today have an extrememly discolored view of the "American right". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:26, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Article Protection ==

Why was this article protected? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 15:21, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*It should be obvious, Colin. If not, talk to Andy. Revert-wars, in a pique of temper, are not encouraged here. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 15:25, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:Whether it's obvious or not, no reason for protecting it was listed. Was the article vandalized? Not from what I see. If it's just the case of a revert war, then why not try this: I will revert the article back to the version prior to the revert war (for now.) and unlock the article with the understanding that neither side of the revert war will make any edits to the debated part. The two sides can then debate/hopefully reach a compromise at [[Talk:Political_spectrum/common_usage]] and when this matter is resolved, the corrected text can be entered. Sound good? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 15:31, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yep, it's pretty obvious. Many people here seem to be intent on proving the point I was making to Ed Poor that this whole "Political Spectrum" argument is nothing more than a clumsy attempt at self-serving historical revisionism. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:33, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Sorry, Colin. I put in a reason. You are not the "decider" here. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 15:34, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:I'm not claiming to be the decider. I'm trying to resolve this issue in a way that benefits Conservapedia, rather than leave this site with another locked page. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 15:35, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Well, there is the fallacy in your argument. This isn't Wikipedia, and that idea about locking pages is their good idea, and obviously yours. I don't see a problem locking a page for a few hours, or a day.

::You've got to understand, Colin, that they aren't going to revert it back to what it was before the "edit war" because they don't LIKE what it was before the edit war. This is not about preventing an "edit war." It's about altering common usage so that the leftists are dumped in with the Communists, but the Right Wingers aren't associated with Nazis. It's about trying to pass off Hitler as a leftist. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:38, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::We have 50 locked articles. Wanna help me figure out which ones aren't vandalism targets or edit war battlezones? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:54, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Sure, Ed. I don't consider that figure unacceptable, or bad. Shame on me! :p --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 15:56, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Ahhh, I see.....nothing pressing on that subject, eh? Just as I thought. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:15, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Much better! ==

'''Thank you, Rob!''' --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:30, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

My! Getting even better! --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:37, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==Wow, that was a brilliant deletion of all content from this page==

Congratulations to Rob for deleting the only '''definition''' of the political spectrum from the political spectrum page,
and replacing it with this '''complaint''':

:The political spectrum is a method used to assign views to persons and groups which they do not hold. It is a method of pigeon-holing stereotypes.

Notice that says '''nothing''' about what the political spectrum actually is. "A method used to assign views ... people do not hold" could be a description of comedy, or a description of blackmail, or whatever. But it says '''nothing''' about what the political spectrum is. Don't you think the political spectrum page should try to explain what the political spectrum is?

I tried to define what seems to be the main difference between viewpoints called "left" and viewpoints called "right". I said:

:'Right' means defending traditional institutions and values; 'left' means challenging them.

Is that a perfect definition? Probably not. Can somebody come up with a better definition? Great if you can. But just deleting it and boo-hooing about unjust stereotyping is a sign of insecurity worthy of the P.C.-est college hippy around. Personally I don't even understand what a 'rightist' or a 'leftist' would find insulting about my definition.

Obviously not all views can be neatly classified. I'm glad the criticisms of a one-dimensional viewpoint didn't disappear from the page: it's important to remember that not everything is left or right or conservative or liberal or whatever. I sure wish people on other pages in Conservapedia would remember that once in a while.

Having words to classify political viewpoints is helpful, but obviously that doesn't mean every viewpoint can be nailed down perfectly. I'm not trying to assign views to people who don't hold them. The left-right 'political spectrum' is just a way of classifying '''some''' views.

It's like when you go into a furniture store and ask for a red couch. Are all red couches exactly the same color? No. Are there some couches you would call red, which upon close inspection contain some fibers of other colors? Yes. Does that mean the word 'red' is a method for pigeon-holing stereotypes? Good luck furniture shopping if you ban all words for colors.

So don't delete my definition. If you can figure out and defend a better one, that would be great. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 03:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Now I added references from a couple of introduction-to-political-science textbooks supporting my definition. I have no idea whether the authors are "leftists" or "rightists" or whatever. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 06:44, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Rob's complaint should be turned into a '''description''' of a well-sourced scholar view, like this:
:*According to the Confoundatarian Party, all political spectrums are illegitimate because they wind up being used pigeonhole persons and groups with false stereotypes.
:Any flaws in a left-center-right [[model]] should be noted, but not as an opinion of one CP editor - rather, attributed to a verifiable source. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:53, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Ed, read my comments, please!! All I'm asking for is a '''definition''' of what's the difference between left and right. There's nothing wrong with what your old version says, only what it '''doesnt''' say: it doesnt define why some things are called left and some are called right. I provided a very simple definition, and backed it up with two sources. How can you
revert to an unsourced version without the most basic information? Meanwhile you deleted a lot of other people's contributions too... I will revert back (just once, you're the editor).

:I read that comment <grin>. It's like saying all I want for Christmas is "peace on earth, good will to men". You forget to mention a chicken in every pot and a [[perpetual motion]] machine. </grin>

:Okay, enough joking around. Seriously, the problem is that no one can agree on the definitions. This article makes our creationism and evolution articles look simple (and I've reserved several even '''more contentious''' subjects for a later date - don't ask).

:Could we please '''list''' the various definitions someplace? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 08:10, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

::Sure, listing would be great. ESPECIALLY if people provide some references for their defs. Let me know if you lose my refs in all the editing/reediting. By the way, good job. I assume the fact that there is more silence now means people agree with most of the material in the draft sections... --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 08:15, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==By the way==

By the way, this comment has nothing to do with the content of the page. So why is it included?

:The Left-Right theory does not explain how international coalitions come about. For example, the Atlantic Charter which gave birth to NATO was a statement of common objectives and inaugurated by the progressive Franklin Roosevelt and monarchist Tory Winston Churchill. Nor the common objectives pursued by George H. W. Bush and Shimon Peres of the Isreali Labor Party. Nor the alliance of George W. Bush and Tony Blair, to name only a few from a multitude of examples.

The Left-Right definition was never intended to be a theory of how coalitions come about. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 03:51, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Sorry Redblue...I responded on my talk page. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 04:13, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Sections==

We need to divide the article into sections, to avoid wasting time on edit conflicts. There are two ways to do this. The easy way requires an update to MediaWiki, so I'm going to do this the hard way. Please bear with me. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:18, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I'm all for creating sections, as long as this allows actually putting some information in this page about how political scientists and tradition define the political spectrum. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 07:21, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Some useful sections could include "definition", "origin", "contemporary US usage", "history", and "political movements".
And "criticisms of one-dimensional viewpoint" --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 07:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:Okay, here they are:
:*[[/definition]]
:*[[/origin]]
:*[[/usage]]
:*[[/history]]
:*[[/movements]]
:I'll set these up as unprotected templates that appear at the head of this talk page. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:39, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

== Fairness ==

Would anyone feel it would be unfair for a sysop to use article protection to gain an editorial advantage? [[User:Ed_Poor|Ed Poor]]

Tally: 4 yes, 0 no, 0 other

Yes:
# Gonna assume this gap is for people to fill! It's not just unfair, its an abuse of privilege! Sysop's who use their powers in such a way should have their powers removed! [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 07:28, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
# Yes, I'm seeing this now with [[Young Earth Creationism]] which is currently being [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Young_Earth_Creationism&curid=6662&diff=96819&oldid=96811 edited by the protecting sysop while it is locked down]. What this means is that if you get ops, you can turn any portion of Conservapedia into your own personal blog and no one can do anything about it. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 07:28, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
#** PS, Ed, the revert you just did of my work on this article was the last straw. [[User:Teresita|Teresita]] 07:31, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
#Well, I'll make it unanimous then.
#*We need to find a way to agree. I suggest [[Conservapedia:planning|planning]]. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:37, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
#Protection is for preventing vandalism, not enforcing content. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 07:40, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

No:

Other:

Talk:Political spectrum/definitions

2007-04-10T12:03:29Z

Redblue: /* Definition */

==Definition==

Political scientists' definition of the political spectrum classifies some political positions as leftist or rightist. Politics on the 'right' usually support the traditional institutions and values of a society. Politics on the 'left' usually favor challenging traditional institutions and values.<ref>H. Winter and T. Bellows (1997), Conflict and Compromise: An Introduction to Political Science, 8th ed., Ch. 3. Longman, Inc.</ref>,<ref>S. Tansey (2000), Politics: the Basics, 2nd ed., Ch. 4. Routledge, Inc.</ref>

There were a whole lot of good criticisms of the one-dimensional viewpoint made in the earlier page. I think that
should be a separate section. But if not, it would fit here:

Many people reject a one-dimensional view of the political spectrum.

:"The old one-dimensional categories of 'right' and 'left', established for the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly of 1789, are overly simplistic for today's complex political landscape." <ref>[http://www.politicalcompass.org/ The Political Compass] </ref>

For example, [[libertarian]]s say that their point of view - advocating personal freedom in all its forms, as long as it does not conflict with the freedom of others, is '''not''' a left-wing or right-wing position. Advocating freedom sometimes leads them to take positions that are usually considered [[rightist | right-wing]] (for example, defending a worker's right not to join a labor union) but at other times leads them to take positions that are usually considered [[leftist | left-wing]] (for example, defending gay rights).
--[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 08:03, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

2007-04-10T11:03:30Z

Redblue: Definition!!! Definition with references!!!

Talk:Political Spectrum

2007-04-10T10:44:34Z

Redblue: /* Wow, that was a brilliant deletion of all content from this page */

*The old one-dimensional categories of 'right' and 'left', established for the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly of 1789, are overly simplistic for today's complex political landscape. For example, who are the 'conservatives' in today's Russia? Are they the unreconstructed Stalinists, or the reformers who have adopted the right-wing views of conservatives like Margaret Thatcher ? On the standard left-right scale, how do you distinguish leftists like Stalin and Gandhi? It's not sufficient to say that Stalin was simply more left than Gandhi. There are fundamental political differences between them that the old categories on their own can't explain. Similarly, we generally describe social reactionaries as 'right-wingers', yet that leaves left-wing reactionaries like Robert Mugabe and Pol Pot off the hook. [http://www.politicalcompass.org/]

Any ideas? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:56, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

:These are some vivid and timely illustrations of the problem. While the idea has worked as a sort of shorthand for condensing substantive analysis, the problem stems from treating it as a doctrinal truth. This wouldn't be a problem if it was used comparatively after surveying different issues, ideas, groups, or individuals, but that is not what happens. It's used as the starting point for any discussion and analysis. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 22:08, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:: Some sort of y and z dimensions to the political spectrum could be explained - personal freedom vs. economic freedom?

PS: Does this mean that PF Fox can call the Nazis right wing now :-p ? [[User:Wikinterpreter|Wikinterpreter]]

*The '''political spectrum''' of contemporary U.S. politics places [[liberal]]s such as [[Democrats]] on the left and [[conservative]]s such as [[Republicans]] on the right.
Neither party enjoys being compared to the Communist left or the Nazi right, but both seem to get mileage out of using such a comparison for their political opponents. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 13:06, 6 April 2007 (EDT)

::Of course, that's why we need a definition of the political spectrum (what, if anything, do Dems/Reps have in common with Commies/Nazis), which is why I wrote the comment mentioned below. So I am going to include my suggested distinctions now on the political spectrum page... --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 06:55, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:There's a long comment at [[Talk:Rightist]] which indicates the need for a merge. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 06:45, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*'''I disagree.''' Respectfully. Even though actions are being taken without consult with the other Sysops or users, in a most disrespectful way. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 22:16, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
**Nothing has developed at [[Leftist]] or [[Rightist]] other than the typical namecalling without any real efforts to give a valid definition. Then we have the argument that this abuse has occured for decades in other print publications, so why shouldn't we just continue it. The ''New York Times'', for example reported as late as 1912 that a highly sophisticated civilization existed on Mars; and the ''New York Times'' certainly is as credible as source as Merriam Websters. Again we are faced with the same dilemma: this is only a theory and should be properly identified as a theory. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 23:05, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
***It's not a [[theory]], it's a [[definition]]. There's nothing to test about it, it's just a (very imperfect) way of classifying (some, not all) political viewpoints. 'Red' state is not a perfect description of politics in Texas, just like 'red' couch is not a perfect description of the color of the furniture in your livingroom. Would you say that describing some couches as red, and other couches as blue, is 'just a theory, and should be properly identified as a theory'? --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 04:17, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==Nolan chart==
[[Image:Nolan-chart.svg|right|thumb|A 2-d view of politics]]
*The one-dimensional "left versus right" model of political thought is pervasive in American society today. It's what was originally taught to me in high school, though there were two distinct variations of this model. The first, a "liberal-centric" model, divided [[politics]] between those on the "[[left]]" ([[liberals]] and [[radicals]]) and those on the "[[right]]" (conservatives and [[reactionaries]]) and posited that those on the "left" favored change and [[progress]] while those of the right favored [[tradition]]al and the s[[tatus quo]]. The second, a more "conservative-centric" model, divided politics between those on the "left" (liberals, [[socialist]]s, [[communist]]s) and those on the "right" ([[conservative]]s and [[libertarian]]s) and posited that those on the left favored (to varying degrees) [[bigger government]], [[egalitarianism]], and [[collectivism]] while those on the "right" favored [[smaller government]], [[free market]]s, and [[individualism]]. [http://blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-cjQ4r_Y_cqXPXpxyIWQePYrgXHbB?tag=libertarian]

The Nolan chart (who was Nolan?) could be a great topic for another page... --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 08:43, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:Well, his chart is "on the right". :-) --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 10:03, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== A Matter of Common Usage ==

I'm sorry, but this is simply nonsense. No, "left" and "right" are not always exact terms when they're used in the context of politics, but neither is "liberal" or "conservative" and you guys seem perfectly willing to use those terms, even going so far as to set up separate entries for "liberal" and "conservative." As I've already observed to Ed Poor, the entry on Communism plainly states that "Communism is an economic system, social organization, and LEFTIST political movement." Why, if you're willing to allow a statement about Communism being "leftist" to stand, are you squeamish about applying "right wing" to the Nazis?

They were considered "right wing" in the Nazi era in Germany. They have been referred to as "right wing" since by historians. Diarists of that time referred to them as "right wing," journalists, travel books, critics of the Nazis, supporters of the Nazis, all referred to them as "right wing." Attempting to remove that label is nothing more or less than historical revisionism, and since the term "leftist" has remained in the reference to "Communism" even after I've pointed it out, it is decidedly suspect and one-sided revisionism.

The arguments I've encountered for not applying the term "right wing" to the Nazis are an illustration of just how ridiculous is this attempt to change common usage. The Nazis rose as a response to many of the liberal policies of the Weimar Republic, the emacipation of the Jews, the increasing freedoms enjoyed by women, the rise of avant garde artists. Cramming this reality into the argument that "the Nazis weren't right wing" requires misrepresenting history, figuring out some way that the Nazis DIDN'T oppose the Weimar Republic. Thus, I've been told that the Weimar Era didn't end until 1939 and been offered a fudged quote from Albert Speer to support a claim that's not just dubious but positively surrealistic. Doesn't it give you pause that this silliness is the only way this rejection of the term "right wing" can be defended?

These objections to the "political spectrum model" come across here as simply an excuse for derrailing political discussions heading in directions you dislike into long and pointless quibbles. Words have meanings, folks. What those meanings are generally depends on common usage. That's how language works. Attempts to alter common usage are almost always less about precision than they are about fulfilling a political or religious agenda.

Give up using the words "conservative" and "liberal" and maybe, just MAYBE your arguments about the words "left" and "right" will begin to have some merit. But of course you all know as well as I do that's not going to happen. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 11:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:You made a good point, which I have added to the article. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Political_spectrum&diff=95340&oldid=95045] --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 12:54, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Calling Nazi's right-wing, was a contrivance of the left. A pejorative idea, to diminish Conservatives, the right wing. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 13:01, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Then every journalist, every historian, every writer of travel books, every contemporary observer of Nazi Germany, every respected writer who's written about them since were and are all part of "the left." You sure you want to stick with this claim? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:09, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Yeah, like suspecting all of the above is a bad thing? Not in my world! "Respected" writers are like nattering nabobs of dissent. "Conventional Wisdom" is neither. ;-) --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 14:23, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::::Riiiiiigggghhhht TK... It's ALL a commie plot involving William Shirer, Hugh Trevor-Roper, Milton Meyer, Victor Klemperer, Walter Cronkite, the publishers of Fodors, anybody for or against the Nazis who kept a diary at the time, and every journalist who covered them (including the guys who wrote for TIME.) --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Henry Luce would have fired most of 'em. Try to think for yourself, not pay so much attention to people you think are icons. ;-) Time isn't considered much of a source, outside of Liberal circles. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 14:30, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::hitler and stalin were buddies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact . [[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 14:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::*A Socialist, by any other name, is still a Socialist. A dictator by any other name, is still a dictator. A thug is still a thug, as time goes by......... --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 14:34, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::So were Saddam Hussein and Donald Rumsfeld [http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/]. That is also of no relevance but interesting all the same.
:::[[User:WhatIsG0ing0n|WhatIsG0ing0n]] 14:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*I beleive using the word "buddies" is inappropriate. Now, I would have to check with Don, but I don't think they were actual buddies....--~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 14:40, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::TK says: "Henry Luce would have fired most of 'em." LOL! Then why didn't he? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:42, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Jaques says "Hitler and Stalin were buddies." Briefly. Hitler and Hirohito were "buddies" for the duration of the war, so I guess the next step in this revisionism is for you guys to claim that Hitler wasn't a racist. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:42, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Hitler was indeed an out-and-out racist. And a Socialist. Hence the "National Socialist Party", and their style of governing, and the welfare state they used to control the masses. Same as the New Deal eventually led to a welfare class in the United States, one used to manipulate the vote, quite successfully. Not exactly "new" ideas. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 14:45, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Maybe part of the problem is that the European right wing is different than the American right wing...European conservativism and American conservativism are just really different animals. European conservativism is statist, elitist, and monarchical, and developed out of a rejection of the classical liberal tradition. American conservativism is individualist, democratic, and republican, because "classical liberalism" is that way. The Nazis were definately a "rightist" party, and when they first took control of the government, they had to do it in coalition with the DNVP, a party on the right that was nationalistic and monarchical. That doesn't mean that they're anything like the American rightwing. But they definately weren't socialist. Any socialist elements in the Nazi party were destroyed with the Strasser purge. And there was already a welfare state in Germany before the Nazis..Bismarck introduced all sorts of social welfare programs--[[User:Epicurius|Epicurius]] 14:47, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::TK have you ready ANY books or contemporary accounts of the Third Reich -- or are you just depending on what your favorite websites tell you? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 14:48, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::Stalin was pretty racsist himself.[[User:Jaques|Jaques]] 14:50, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*You are impertinent, P.F. Fox. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 14:52, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::I am well informed, TK, and well read. Anyone who imagines that Henry Luce would have fired a reporter for referring to the Nazis as "right wing" is not very well informed.

:::From Time Magazine (August 8, 1932):

:::"There will be 607 Deputies in the new Reichstag, largest, in German history. Simplifying the returns, it means that the Nazis and other Right Wing Parties will have a total of 277 seats." --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:04, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*That means nothing. How parties were characterized in the 1930's especially European political parties, had and has little to do with reality. It would be the same thing to call the Libertarian Party more like the Republican Party, or even the Democratic. While simplistically one could make some comparisons, but overall, highly inaccurate. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds... Ralph Waldo Emerson --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 15:18, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::How parties were characterized in the 1930s had much more to do with the reality of that time than how someone plainly unfamiliar with that era and with a political axe to grind characterizes them over 70 years later. What you and others here are trying to do is change the common usage of the term "right wing" that has been in effect from the 30s TO THE PRESENT. And it's interesting to note that where you were earlier stoutly declaring that "Henry Luce would have fired" reporters who referred to the Nazis as right wing, you are now denouncing his agreement with that assessment as meaningless. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*I see. So Socialism is a right-wing deal? Back then? No? Both? --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 15:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::No, Socialistm is not "a right-wing deal." And the Nazis were not Socialists. Have you read ANY books on this subject? If not, don't you think that you should? --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 16:02, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==A cultural difference==
In the United States, the term ''Right'' particularly became disabused because of its European origin. Originally it was associated with a titled nobility. No such thing ever existed in the United States, and in fact was prohibited by the United States Constititution. Hence, Europeans today have an extrememly discolored view of the "American right". [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:26, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Article Protection ==

Why was this article protected? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 15:21, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*It should be obvious, Colin. If not, talk to Andy. Revert-wars, in a pique of temper, are not encouraged here. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 15:25, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:Whether it's obvious or not, no reason for protecting it was listed. Was the article vandalized? Not from what I see. If it's just the case of a revert war, then why not try this: I will revert the article back to the version prior to the revert war (for now.) and unlock the article with the understanding that neither side of the revert war will make any edits to the debated part. The two sides can then debate/hopefully reach a compromise at [[Talk:Political_spectrum/common_usage]] and when this matter is resolved, the corrected text can be entered. Sound good? [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 15:31, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Yep, it's pretty obvious. Many people here seem to be intent on proving the point I was making to Ed Poor that this whole "Political Spectrum" argument is nothing more than a clumsy attempt at self-serving historical revisionism. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:33, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Sorry, Colin. I put in a reason. You are not the "decider" here. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 15:34, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
:I'm not claiming to be the decider. I'm trying to resolve this issue in a way that benefits Conservapedia, rather than leave this site with another locked page. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 15:35, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Well, there is the fallacy in your argument. This isn't Wikipedia, and that idea about locking pages is their good idea, and obviously yours. I don't see a problem locking a page for a few hours, or a day.

::You've got to understand, Colin, that they aren't going to revert it back to what it was before the "edit war" because they don't LIKE what it was before the edit war. This is not about preventing an "edit war." It's about altering common usage so that the leftists are dumped in with the Communists, but the Right Wingers aren't associated with Nazis. It's about trying to pass off Hitler as a leftist. --[[User:PF Fox|PF Fox]] 15:38, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:::We have 50 locked articles. Wanna help me figure out which ones aren't vandalism targets or edit war battlezones? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 15:54, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

*Sure, Ed. I don't consider that figure unacceptable, or bad. Shame on me! :p --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 15:56, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Ahhh, I see.....nothing pressing on that subject, eh? Just as I thought. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:15, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

== Much better! ==

'''Thank you, Rob!''' --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:30, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

My! Getting even better! --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 16:37, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

==Wow, that was a brilliant deletion of all content from this page==

Congratulations to Rob for deleting the only '''definition''' of the political spectrum from the political spectrum page,
and replacing it with this '''complaint''':

:The political spectrum is a method used to assign views to persons and groups which they do not hold. It is a method of pigeon-holing stereotypes.

Notice that says '''nothing''' about what the political spectrum actually is. "A method used to assign views ... people do not hold" could be a description of comedy, or a description of blackmail, or whatever. But it says '''nothing''' about what the political spectrum is. Don't you think the political spectrum page should try to explain what the political spectrum is?

I tried to define what seems to be the main difference between viewpoints called "left" and viewpoints called "right". I said:

:'Right' means defending traditional institutions and values; 'left' means challenging them.

Is that a perfect definition? Probably not. Can somebody come up with a better definition? Great if you can. But just deleting it and boo-hooing about unjust stereotyping is a sign of insecurity worthy of the P.C.-est college hippy around. Personally I don't even understand what a 'rightist' or a 'leftist' would find insulting about my definition.

Obviously not all views can be neatly classified. I'm glad the criticisms of a one-dimensional viewpoint didn't disappear from the page: it's important to remember that not everything is left or right or conservative or liberal or whatever. I sure wish people on other pages in Conservapedia would remember that once in a while.

Having words to classify political viewpoints is helpful, but obviously that doesn't mean every viewpoint can be nailed down perfectly. I'm not trying to assign views to people who don't hold them. The left-right 'political spectrum' is just a way of classifying '''some''' views.

It's like when you go into a furniture store and ask for a red couch. Are all red couches exactly the same color? No. Are there some couches you would call red, which upon close inspection contain some fibers of other colors? Yes. Does that mean the word 'red' is a method for pigeon-holing stereotypes? Good luck furniture shopping if you ban all words for colors.

So don't delete my definition. If you can figure out and defend a better one, that would be great. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 03:48, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Now I added references from a couple of introduction-to-political-science textbooks supporting my definition. I have no idea whether the authors are "leftists" or "rightists" or whatever. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 06:44, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

==By the way==

By the way, this comment has nothing to do with the content of the page. So why is it included?

:The Left-Right theory does not explain how international coalitions come about. For example, the Atlantic Charter which gave birth to NATO was a statement of common objectives and inaugurated by the progressive Franklin Roosevelt and monarchist Tory Winston Churchill. Nor the common objectives pursued by George H. W. Bush and Shimon Peres of the Isreali Labor Party. Nor the alliance of George W. Bush and Tony Blair, to name only a few from a multitude of examples.

The Left-Right definition was never intended to be a theory of how coalitions come about. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 03:51, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

:*Sorry Redblue...I responded on my talk page. --~ [[User:TK|TK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 04:13, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Political Spectrum

2007-04-10T10:22:48Z

Redblue: /* See also */

The '''political spectrum''' classifies some political positions as [[leftist]] or [[rightist]]. Politics on the 'right' usually support the traditional institutions and values of a society. Politics on the 'left' usually favor challenging traditional institutions and values.<ref>H. Winter and T. Bellows (1997), Conflict and Compromise: An Introduction to Political Science, 8th ed., Ch. 3. Longman, Inc.</ref>,
<ref>S. Tansey (2000), Politics: the Basics, 2nd ed., Ch. 4. Routledge, Inc.</ref>

The left-right classification comes from the [[National Assembly]] in [[France]] just before the [[French Revolution]]. Members who supported political rights for all classes of society, would sit on the left side of the assembly hall in which they met. 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 political spectrum of contemporary U.S. politics classifies [[liberal]]s such as [[Democrats]] on the left and [[conservative]]s such as [[Republicans]] on the right.

In discussions of mid-twentieth century European international politics, [[Communism]] & [[Socialism]] is usually called "left-wing" and [[Nationalism]] ([[Nazism]]/[[Facism]]) "right-wing", no matter how inaccurate, at times, such generalizations are.

The Left-Right theory does not explain how international coalitions come about. For example, the [[Atlantic Charter]] which gave birth to [[NATO]] was a statement of common objectives and inaugurated by the progressive [[Franklin Roosevelt]] and monarchist [[Tory]] [[Winston Churchill]]. Nor the common objectives pursued by [[George H. W. Bush]] and [[Shimon Peres]] of the Isreali Labor Party. Nor the alliance of [[George W. Bush]] and [[Tony Blair]], to name only a few from a multitude of examples.

==Criticisms of a one-dimensional political spectrum==

[[Libertarian]]s reject a one-dimensional view of the matter.

:"The old one-dimensional categories of 'right' and 'left', established for the seating arrangement of the French National Assembly of 1789, are overly simplistic for today's complex political landscape." <ref>[http://www.politicalcompass.org/ The Political Compass] </ref>

They say that their point of view - advocating personal freedom in all its forms, as long as it does not conflict with the freedom of others, is '''not''' a left-wing or right-wing position. Advocating freedom sometimes leads them to take positions that are usually considered [[rightist | right-wing]] (for example, defending a worker's right not to join a labor union) but at other times leads them to take positions that are usually considered [[leftist | left-wing]] (for example, defending gay rights).

==Notes==

<references/>

==See also==

* [[Fascist]]

* [[Socialist]]

* [[Communist]]

* [[Libertarian]]

* [[Republican]]

* [[Democrat]]

* [[Nationalism]]

* [[Social democracy]]

* [[Christian democracy]]

[[Category:Politics]]

2007-04-10T07:27:41Z

Redblue: reverting unhelpful deletion of definition

Talk:Conservative Party (UK)

2007-04-09T12:45:05Z

Redblue: New page: Aren't there any disambiguation pages on Conservapedia??? --~~~~

Aren't there any disambiguation pages on Conservapedia??? --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 08:45, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Political Spectrum

2007-04-09T12:43:22Z

Redblue:

User:Ed Poor

2007-04-09T11:59:35Z

Redblue:

[[Category:Wikipedians on Conservapedia|Ed Poor]]
Archives: [[/archive 01|01]] [[/archive 02|02]]


*It was, by his own admission, a "messy" way to make decisions. But it had one overwhelming advantage; allowing people to operate without having to explain themselves constantly turns out to be like the rule of agreement in [[improv]]. It enables rapid cognition." ([[Paul van Riper]]'s big victory in ''Blink'')

There was a time when Wikipedia was a [[meritocracy]], and I rose rapidly through the ranks then. I got Jimbo to create the Mediation and Arbitration committee's, so he wouldn't have to be the sheriff all the time. I became the first elected bureaucrat, and pioneered the system whereby admins could enforce rules without having to take everything before a committee.

But I didn't see the anti-elitism creeping up and choking the life out of the place. [[Larry Sanger]] was right. My only worry about this place is that it '''might''' make the equal and opposite mistake; it has certainly been accused of it, hundreds of times. But senior staff have been amazingly tolerant of opposing ideas here so far and I reason to hope they will continue to do so.

Ed Poor-- Nice job on the political spectrum page. Conciseness is next to godliness. I didnt appreciate being called a weasel... but your editing was good.

I still support separate pages for left/right/ and spectrum. The left/right pages are now very concise. But I think we should leave them open for people to expand on. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 07:55, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

:LOL, the weaselly part I cut out was (I think) actually written by me. Lemme go check. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 07:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

::Doesnt really matter who wrote it... the current version strikes me as clearer. --[[User:Redblue|Redblue]] 07:59, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

User:Ed Poor

2007-04-09T11:55:47Z

Redblue:

Classical liberal

2007-04-09T11:22:51Z

Redblue:

A '''classical liberal''' is someone who is [[liberal]] in the original sense of the word: namely, advocating personal freedom.

A common synonym for 'classical liberal' which is more commonly used in the US is [[libertarian]].