Difference between revisions of "Talk:Political Spectrum"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(→‎Fairness)
m (→‎Fairness: added attribution to question, which was unsigned)
Line 185: Line 185:
 
== Fairness ==
 
== Fairness ==
  
−
Would anyone feel it would be unfair for a sysop to use article protection to gain an editorial advantage?
+
Would anyone feel it would be unfair for a sysop to use article protection to gain an editorial advantage? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]]
  
 
Yes:
 
Yes:

Revision as of 11:32, April 10, 2007

/intro

/1

/2

/end


  • 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)

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. 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 ? Wikinterpreter

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)
  • I disagree. Respectfully. Even though actions are being taken without consult with the other Sysops or users, in a most disrespectful way. --~ 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. 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'? --Redblue 04:17, 10 April 2007 (EDT)


Nolan chart

A 2-d view of politics

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 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. --PF Fox 11:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

You made a good point, which I have added to the article. [3] --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. --~ 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? --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. ;-) --~ 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.) --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. --~ TK MyTalk 14:30, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
hitler and stalin were buddies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molotov-Ribbentrop_Pact . 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......... --~ TK MyTalk 14:34, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
So were Saddam Hussein and Donald Rumsfeld [4]. That is also of no relevance but interesting all the same.
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....--~ TK MyTalk 14:40, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
TK says: "Henry Luce would have fired most of 'em." LOL! Then why didn't he? --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. --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. --~ 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--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? --PF Fox 14:48, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Stalin was pretty racsist himself.Jaques 14:50, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
  • You are impertinent, P.F. Fox. --~ 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." --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 --~ 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. --PF Fox 15:27, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
  • I see. So Socialism is a right-wing deal? Back then? No? Both? --~ 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? --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". RobS 16:26, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Article Protection

Why was this article protected? ColinRtalk 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. --~ 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? ColinRtalk 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. --PF Fox 15:33, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Sorry, Colin. I put in a reason. You are not the "decider" here. --~ 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. ColinRtalk 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. --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? --Ed Poor 15:54, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Sure, Ed. I don't consider that figure unacceptable, or bad. Shame on me! :p --~ TK MyTalk 15:56, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
  • Ahhh, I see.....nothing pressing on that subject, eh? Just as I thought. --~ TK MyTalk 16:15, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Much better!

Thank you, Rob! --~ TK MyTalk 16:30, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

My! Getting even better! --~ 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. --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. --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. --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).

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. --Redblue 03:51, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

  • Sorry Redblue...I responded on my talk page. --~ 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. --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. --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" --Redblue 07:24, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Fairness

Would anyone feel it would be unfair for a sysop to use article protection to gain an editorial advantage? MatteeNeutra

Yes:

  1. 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! MatteeNeutra 07:28, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
  1. Yes, I'm seeing this now with Young Earth Creationism which is currently being 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. Teresita 07:28, 10 April 2007 (EDT)
  • PS, Ed, the revert you just did of my work on this article was the last straw. Teresita 07:31, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

No:

Retrieved from "https://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Political_Spectrum&oldid=97232"