Talk: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. 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. [1]

Any ideas? --Ed Poor 12:56, 6 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 ? Wikinterpreter

• The political spectrum of contemporary U.S. politics places liberals such as Democrats on the left and conservatives 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. --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... --Redblue 06:55, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

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

Nolan chart

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 traditional and the status quo. The second, a more "conservative-centric" model, divided politics between those on the "left" (liberals, socialists, communists) and those on the "right" (conservatives and libertarians) 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 markets, and individualism. [2]

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

Well, his chart is "on the right". :-) --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 "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 just a little pause that this silliness is the only way this rejection of the term "right wing" can be defended? --PF Fox 11:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)