In my previous post on political structures (it’s been quite some time now), I described a basic framework/spectrum that helped me understand the general overview of such a complex topic.
But we live in an age where democracies are still highly relevant and prevalent. Indeed, the Benevelont Dictatorship (ahem, where I’m from) is still technically a democracy.
So the next question is that how these political structures survive (or not), as the stability of such structures are subject to the whims of fragmented, disparate constituents. And yet, the balance of benevolence, governance and politics must surely be the equivalent of tightrope walking on a wet, windy day.
Of all democracries - US politics is probably the most visible (and impactful) globally. As a case study, the political left and political right are well understood also viewed as a spectrum. Have dug a little deeper, it has its roots in the old French parliamentary systems which seems to have stood the test of time.
If the prior post laid out the ultimate political structure, this post delves into looking at the people themselves.
Smart People on the Left, Smart People on the Right
I continue to be fascinated (as I have done with energy) - on the variability of thought amongst different people whom I view as terribly clever and intelligent. How is it so, that people left leaning or right leaning can have similar capacities for thought yet differ so fundamentally on certain issues?
I have met brilliant conservative Americans who might be “grouped” together with rioters at the White House. I, as a globalised citizen, would be slightly left leaning, but abhor the green extremists who would identify on the (far) left too.
So its clear to me, that these blanket definitions ought to be better refined when understanding people’s positioning on such political spectrums.
Adding one more Dimensions, from Spectrum to 2x2.
So to refine my understanding - I consider that political identities could be coloured not only based on left/right -leanings, but also on those who are inclined towards balance and trade-offs as opposed to absolutism.
Yet, I believe most people who would consider balance or trade-offs would be the types of thinkers who are intuitive. In more conventional terminology, I would practically equate moderates with thinkers - with a nuance towards individual thought.
So the the spectrum follows:
- Progressive left - Binary: pure idealism, pushing for radical change, no matter the cost. The image I have in mind is a green extreme activist.
- Progressive, left - Intuitive: Open to change, progression/improvement leaning - who live in the gray
- Conservative, right - Intuitive: Reticent to change, trade-off leaning - who live in the gray
- Conservative, right - Binary defending status quo, no matter the cost
Naturally, I must state my own biases by being progressive left leaning, but I have since also gravitated towards aspects of Conservatism, as long as they remain within the realm of balance and trade-offs.
In an environment where the world is increasingly fragmented across political divides, I wonder how governments will continue to be able to pander to their many varied sects. Yet as a voter, we ultimately make binary decisions, choices and things we identify with. (Link to other post here) for better or for worse.
I’d be VERY interested to know if there is quantitative evidence backing up an intutive view of moderates vs levels of intuition. Such a database would be intersting. It could be the kinda stuff I could write a thesis on political theory on - but alas, a blog post will have to suffice.