Politics, and Enrollment Across the Gulf
One of the greatest challenges of our age is the gulf between “left” and “right”; however one defines those terms.
It’s worth noting that many American conservatives regard today’s Republican party not as conservative but rather authoritarian. In other democratic nations, the word conservative connotes political positions that are, if anything, toward the center or even the “left” of the US Democrats.
On the other hand, the “conservatism” of Putin’s Russia appeals to a significant swath of American Republicans; an inversion from the party’s historic alliances. (Below, I will share a new theory as to why this may be so.)
Further, “right wing” parties have emerged in other democratic nations which seem to share much with MAGA Republicans.
The whole left-right divide has long struck me as, at best, a convenient artifice for whomever propounds it. It certainly doesn’t work at the far edges: a communist “left” government has a lot more in common with a fascist “right” government than either does with anything else on the so-called continuum.
Some propose resolving this with a circle, but that strikes me as an intellectual absurdity.
The libertarians call themselves neither right nor left. They argue that all political positions should be viewed as existing not on a left-right line but instead on an x:y grid. Specifically, the X axis would be degrees of social freedom and the Y axis would be degrees of economic freedom.
Others point out that this model presumes that freedom is defined as “freedom of”, while some prefer to define it as “freedom from”.
As I was writing ACS, I realized that the libertarian grid could become a lot more interesting and potentially useful if laid flat and a third dimension added. This third dimension would be degrees of abundance. With abundance added, even the most extreme form of dictatorship (e.g. Orwellian) could deliver what, to many, would be a good life.
Still, I’ve long suspected that something other than the apparent basis for political chasm was at work. Now a scientific theory, which divides “left” from “right” in terms of looseness and tightness, offers a more robust explanation. There is a New York Times article explaining this.
In essence, tightness and looseness are determined through a set of variables. The pattern of these reduces to a number. States which Trump won in 2016 tend to be tight; states which Clinton won tend to be loose.
What I find most interesting about the article is how it proposes that arguments can be framed to persuade people. Research is finding that, by first identifying and then appealing to the proper set of values (loose or tight), people become more receptive to the argument; whatever it is.
This seems to have important implications for enrollment into ACS.