Thoughts towards a new political taxonomy

[Recursion]

I'm expanding an idea from Noah Millman (just about the only conservative I think all liberals should read) here. I've broken from Millman on my label choices (he says "liberal/conservative" where I say "libertarian/communitarian" and "progressive/reactionary" where I say "progressive/conservative&quot .

I propose a three-axis taxonomy for American politics:

Libertarian-Communitarian
Progressive-Conservative
Right-Left

Bear with me. Here are the short-form questionaires

Libertarian-Communitarian

Do you believe the individual exists to serve the community (communitarian) or the community exists to serve the individual (libertarian)?

Progessive-Conservative

Are you more concerned with the future (progressive) or the past (conservative)?

Right-Left

Are you more concerned with the state's treatment of winners (right) or losers (left), broadly speaking?

A lot of things come out of these three axes, but I think they're worth considering. Where would you place yourself on them? I'll say I am a Communitarian Conservative Leftist.

[CJCRANE]

1. I always say I'm left wing because...

I'm more concerned with helping the underdogs (which now includes the middle class) than the overlords, e.g. tackling corporate fraud is more urgent than tackling welfare fraud (although they're both important issues).

On the others, I'm not sure, maybe in the middle.

[Democracyinkind]

2. Interesting and challenging.

Though this might seem slightly contradictory, I would consider myself a

Libertarian Progressive Leftist

under this taxonomy.

I have historical and practical reservations about saying that the individual exists to serve the community.

And I believe that in as far as the state exists to help someone, it should be primarily concerned with helping the "losers". I'm positively Rawlesian when it comes to economic and political institutions that are activist: I believe such institutions should only exist where "they are to be of the greatest benefit to the least-advantaged members of society". In other words, I believe that the state should be (socially and economically) activist in regards to those who have gotten the shitty end of the deal by accident of historical contingency, and that it should leave all others alone to the greatest extent possible, with the exception of forcing them to participate in the kind of activism described before. At least as far as economic and social policy is concerned.

This is just my initial reaction. I might consider this a bit more and read up on Noah Millman, and revise this statement then.

[Recursion]

3. Not contradictory at all, IMO, any more than me

I'm a communitarian conservative leftist, by this taxonomy.

[JHB]

5. I think you're defeating your purpose by using terms with fluid definitions...

Last edited Fri Mar 21, 2014, 10:19 AM - Edit history (1)

...in actual usage. For instance, just because you label "more concerned with the past" as a "conservative" does not mean that someone who self-identifies as a conservative do not also view themselves as looking to the future... and feel no need to call themselves "progressive" just because someone (i.e., you, who to them is just 'some guy') imposed a definition they regard as arbitrary or erroneous.

It also works against mapping changes in usage of those terms over time, which would be a useful function of a taxonomy.

Another point working against an actual taxonomy are the vague definitions and the dichotomous choices: exactly what do "winners" and "losers" men in this context? How will different people evaluate what they are "more concerned" about -- and does their self-reporting match their actual views in everyday life? Nor do you allow much space in between: no one who would say "I'm closer to "both" than either one of those choices" has a place in what is supposed to be a classification scheme.

I don't necessarily disagree with your axes, but they could use more neutral terms to prompt more accurate responses, and rating on a scale rather than picking between two extremes.

[Trust Buster]

6. I agree

Why should I be so foolish as to except someone else's arbitrary verbiage to define me ? No thank you.