So we hear this a lot in leftist circles, that people who dont toe their extreme line arent leftist enough, and how far left are people, so I figured I'd produce some handy dandy scales to determine how far left or right people are. I'll do economic/social/foreign policy and then go from there. For the record, far left will be 1, far right will be 7, but I'll be starting with conservatives and working backwards. I'll be doing this because sometimes it's easier to define the left after we've defined the right.
Economics
7 (Far right/anarcho capitalist)- For the purposes of this scale, we are talking capitalist purists who are so extreme that they support anarcho capitalism.
6 (Right/capitalist)- This is your typical American conservative. Supports laissez faire, dislikes government intervention, low taxes, probably idolizes Reagan and/or Ron paul. Maybe not as extreme as ancaps as they probably support at least minarchist government (and may be authoritarian on other scales, we'll get to that later), but they still support similar ideals, they're just more practical.
5 ("Moderates")- Your typical American moderate. Might support social security for me, but not welfare for thee. Typically supports free market economics. Might support some interventionism in some cases, but seems to generally lean right on most issues. RFK Jr. kinda fits in here, as does 2016 Donald Trump, who was just a bit less hardline and interventionist than the 6s (who would be your Paul Ryan types). Mitt Romney as governor of Massachusetts might fit in here too. Ya know, Rockefeller republicans. You might also get right leaning liberals in here like Bill Clinton maybe, although I'd probably say they're probably like 4.5s or closer to 4s.
4 (Liberal)- Your typical American democrat. May support some interventionism in the economy, but push comes to shove, has a lot of the same ideas as the right, just is more moderate about it, and may support incremental change over large scale changes. Think Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, etc. Now, even this point on the scale is a bit weird. I'd argue some of the ones further to the right here can kinda trend into the 5s, especially if they sell out and make compromises to the right (see Bill Clinton), but at the same time, it's possible to bleed into the 3s somewhat, who are socdems. Liberals are weird, it's a broad spectum, and it goes either way.
3 (Social democrat)- Social democrats are like liberals but support much wider scale changes to the economy. Might support stuff like medicare for all, or UBI, or free college, as opposed to some small program that serves as a band aid. I'd classify myself here, btw. Some socdems I've talked to and people in that range of policy tend to identify as socialists, but are moderate about it, they might bleed into the 2s. Whereas some are more moderate capitalist social liberals and might bleed into the 4s. Bernie Sanders, Andrew Yang, Elizabeth Warren, and myself are all, generally speaking, in this range IMO.
2 (Reformist socialist)- These are the guys who want socialism, and embrace "leftist" ideology, but tend to work within the system and act electorally. They might call for the implementation of socialism over time, and typically identify as democratic socialists or market socialists. Bernie seems to kinda trend here ideologically, although in practice he's more a 3 policy wise. But yeah, this right here, is where we see the big divide between "liberals" and "leftists". Socdems who are more liberal and capitalist in orientation might be more 3s, while those who are in say, the DSA and are hardcore on the socialism label might call themselves 2s here. For a while I considered myself a 2.5, but I'm kinda trending back toward 3 in recent years as I don't value socialism much.
1 (Radical leftist)- These are the guys who are full of marx pilled and want to abolish the system altogether. They tend to believe in the idea of revolution, and probably think that lenin, stalin, and mao, arent' half bad. Alternatively they might be full on anarchists who read a bunch of kropotkin. In all cases though, they tend to be extreme and reject the system as it is and call for radical means to abolish it and replace it with something else.
And yeah, I think this is a solid scale. As I said, I'm basically a 3 here. I'm between the 4s, who are the Biden loving liberals who think incrementalism is okay. And I'm to the right of, and largely rejected by most internet leftists who identify as 2s. Again, mostly social democrat/social liberal/social libertarian land is where 3 is. Your typical republican is a 6, although 2016 trump might've been more like a 5.5 with his protectionist stances. RFK Jr. is basically the epitome of a 5, although you could argue a right leaning third way lib can encroach on that territory too.
Typical overton window in America is 4-6. Dems are 4s, republicans are 6s, "moderates" are 5s, and socdems are 3 and leftists are 2s. 1s and 7s are mostly weirdo extremists that few people take seriously. Even more progressives in congress who are "left of the left" are at most like 2.5. I'm thinking AOC and Bernie here and even then, I think they're more 3s in practice. it's more their voter bases who are 2s sometimes.
Social issues
7 (Fascist/monarchist)- Radical extremists who think normal conservatism isn't enough and we need to overthrow democracy and go back to either monarchism or adopt some weird fascist/nazi type of government. I'm mostly thinking nazis and fascists here, but I have seen weird anti democratic strains in anarcho capitalists who basically wanna abolish democracy and go back to the olden days of kings and queens for some god forsaken reason. They're weird.
6 (Conservative)- Your typical American conservative is here. They generally believe we are a "Christian nation" and want to go back to some past era like the 1950s or something that they thought was grand, but really wasn't unless you were a straight white male with christian values. MAGA conservatives also fit into this group although they're trending dangerously close to the 7s in recent years.
5 ("Moderate")- People who are "moderate" by American standards. They might think the democrats "go way too far" but don't identify as conservatives either. Might be a right libertarian who is a conservative still, but only selectively wants to enforce it on others (such as with abortion, but they're okay with gay marriage and weed). They might be right on some issues, left on others, and a bit all over the place. Some don't have any consistent ideology. Others are conservatives who are trying to be more "moderate" but still endorse many right wing issues. Liz Cheney and Mitt Romney might be here. "No labels" types might be here. Anti Trump conservatives might be here. It's kind of a large umbrella of people, really.
4 (Liberal/Libertarian)- Generally adopt the mainstream positions of the democratic party, but go no further. Might be slightly more conservative on say, immigration, or guns. Might not be into "wokeness" but generally is pretty permissive on most social issues. I'd classify myself as here these days.
3 ("Progressive")- Progressive is a very weird umbrella term. I consider myself a progressive but I mean it in a modernist sense of just making peoples' lives better, not the postmodernist sense I mean here. This is where we start getting a little woke, people might start focusing on raising up "disadvantaged" groups and making that a priority. However, they do it in fairly mild ways, maybe supporting identity politics, and checking your privilege, but don't go too far with it. I probably would've considered myself closer to here in the past, but I've shifted back to being a 4 after "the left" left a bad taste in my mouth.
2 (Leftist)- By this point, you've gone full on 100% "woke", your views on social issues are PRIMARILY defined through the lens of critical theory and identity politics, and you mostly support all of the causes. You might consider yourself a radical feminist (whereas a liberal feminist would be in the 3-4 range). You might care A LOT about the bombing of palestinians and consider israel a "settler colonial" state. But yeah you generally have socially leftist views in most cases and are big on intersectionality and that stuff. Basically, you're a full on SJW. You probably mock both conservatives AND liberals online and think the dems don't go far enough on things, and you're always pushed the envelope.
1 (Radical leftist)- Leftists who take their views so far they probably advocate for violence against those who don't think like them. They tend to think outside of the system, thinking the system has failed people, and support violent direction action against others as a result. 1s and 2s might have a lot in common ideologically, but again, the difference is the extremism with which the beliefs are held. 1s are willing to break the law for their goals, 2s might not be, and prefer to rely more on cultural policing within the confines of the law to push their ideas.
And yeah I think this is a fair scale. I'd consider a 4 these days. I'm just a normal liberal. I used to probably be closer to a 3 maybe 5-10 years ago, but after dealing with the 1s and 2s I've kinda self corrected the other way to the point I'm now largely hostile to identity politics. But still, I'm pretty liberal.
Again, much like with economics, the overton window electorally is mostly between 4s and 6s. However, we are seeing a bit of an extreme bifurcation here. Whereas a decade ago conservatives would swear by the constitution, now they keep talking like we need a dictator to fix this country. And the left has gotten further left. Democrats are typically 3-4. In some ways they might have even gone into the 3 zone to win over feminists, black activists, the LGBTQ+ community, etc, but they're not really hardline on those issues and they govern as 4s, which I'm with because I am a 4. Of course, this makes the 2s unhappy, which is another reason why a lot of leftists are thinking of defecting from Biden. They see his actions on the border as a betrayal, they see his refusal to act on palestine as a betrayal (and yeah this is both foreign policy, but also social policy, as the whole leftist "woke" ideology is a huge motivating factor there). And yeah.
As we can tell, with economics, much of the debates within society are fought between 2s (leftists), 4s (liberals), and 6s (conservatives). On economics I was closer to a 3 as I think social democracy is its own unique ideology between leftism and liberalism that deserves to be recognized, but here, I would say I'm a 4, aligned with the democratic party on policy, and maybe a bit more moderate/conservative on rhetoric as I just flat out reject wokeism and support a more liberal value system that comes from my secular humanist roots.
I also find it interesting how on social issues, there's a bit of a weird horseshoe going on here. Liberals and libertarians are actually closer to a 4, with the extremes becoming authoritarian in opposite directions. Anyway, that's how I see things these days on this.
Foreign policy
7 (Imperialist)- Outright imperialists don't really exist any more, but they are basically in favor of building empires. They support conquering other lands and expanding their empire worldwide. Think the Roman empire, or the Greek empire, or the British empire in more recent years. They support repressive tactics of controlling foreign populations like genocide, torture, etc. Again, think your typical pre 1945 strong man. Some countries might have imperial ambitions but it's generally looked down upon to act on them, which was why Russia's actions were so beyond the pale for me. Putin in Russia is a good example of this.
6 (Neoconservative)- While outright having an empire is practically verboten in the modern day, there is a such thing as neocolonialism, and it is arguably practiced by the United States. Neoconservatives are the epitome of this mindset. They like to actively "spread democracy" through force and invade countries in order to turn them democratic. George W. Bush is the epitome of this, but others since the 1940s have been like this. The US is arguably a neocolonialist project, with the CIA actively meddling in other countries' affairs to ensure outcomes favorable to us. We don't outright claim other peoples' territory as our own, we let people have their own governments and act like they're sovereign, but to some extent, they're puppet governments and we pull the strings. But yeah, what makes someone a neoconservative is basically supporting interventionism abroad with the goal of spreading our values to parts of the world that don't hold them, and possibly engaging in shady tactics to achieve such an outcome.
5 (Paleoconservative)- A less interventionist form of right that is still, nevertheless, right. Paleoconservatives are old school isolationists, and tend to be quite nationalist in their outlook. They don't really actively support interventionism, heck, they might be opposed to it, but they have a nationalist "country first" mentality. The epitome of this is Donald Trump. He's not overly interventionist, if anything he's anti alliances, and seems opposed to stuff like NATO, and on the home front he's very anti immigration and protectionist on trade.
4 (Liberal)- Liberals are ironically more interventionist than paleoconservatives, but are nevertheless, more left wing. What separates liberals from neoconservatives is liberals end up being in favor of multilateralism, a rules based international order, and and the use of soft power over hard power. Compare say, George W. Bush, who was anti UN, and supported just invading people unilaterally, whereas Obama and Clinton and the like would've preferred to go through the UN. Conservatives like to rely on strength, liberals like to rely on our international relationships. Conservatives see themselves as the big cheese and enforcing their will on others, liberals see themselves as working with others to achieve mutually beneficial goals. Liberals can be interventionist, often for humanitarian reasons. Think Bill Clinton who wanted to intervene around the world to stop genocides in the 90s. Paleoconservatives at the time opposed this, wanted to just be isolationist and let the rest of the world do their thing, and seemed to hate the UN and multilateralism. They flipped to being primarily neocon due to 9/11 though. And that's another reason why paleocons are further to the right. They'll suddenly flip to being neocons the second they see fit.
3 (Non interventionist)- This is your typical anti war liberal. They might not be radicals, but they tend to recognize that American interventionism is a mixed bag and typically want less of it, mostly for humanitarian reasons. They might recognize, for example, that Iraq and Afghanistan were mistakes, and seek less interventions of those sorts. They can be supportive of the international rules based order but prefer to lead from behind, focusing on sending weapons and aid rather than boots on the ground, but are typically opposed to actual intervention in countries in question. Obama and Biden ran on anti interventionist sentiments, although they may govern like 4s in practice. However, some non interventionists might lean more toward leftism. This is that mixed bag on the left where it's kinda liberal, but also kinda leftist, and what direction they go depends on the person and the circumstances. I arguably was a 3 who has shifted to be a 4 as the big foreign policy questions shifted from Iraq and Afghanistan to Ukraine and Israel, whereas a lot of non interventionists are trending more and more toward leftism. Marianne Williamson and Kyle Kulinski are these kinds of non interventionists.
2 (Leftist)- Leftists generally tend to adopt a much more radical hardline view and tend to be anti US and anti west to a fault. They tend to be knee jerk against anything the US does, and sees it as a force for evil in the world, recognizing our history of imperialism and neoconservatism. They want the US to stop intervening in the world, and seem sympathetic to the concerns of those who live in the global south. They may stop short of outright supporting the Russians and Chinese though.
1 (Tankie)- Tankies are people who not only have the above views, but tend to be basically traitorous in their views and behavior associated with them. They might actively support Russian and Chinese imperialism while condemning the west. Mostly a terminally online phenomenon, but they'd also be active communist supporters during the cold war. The types of people who in the US would defect and serve as soviet spies and the like. They just hate the US that much.
This spectrum seems to be a lot like the others. It is a bit incoherent as sometimes 4 has more in common with 6 and 3 has more in common with 5, but this is generally a scale of left/right, and I think it represents a good scale between being nationalist, and being anti the nation in question. 1s and 7s represent, once again, cartoonishly extreme positions that arent encountered often in real life. Republicans are 5s-6s, democrats are like 4s, and sometimes 3s, and then leftists do their own weird thing on the other extreme.
And here, I'm like a 3.5. I mean, ideally, I dont like interventionism either, and I tend to be a more laid back lib, but I WILL turn into a 4 when threatened by a nation like russia or china. I tend to support that rules based order, while not really supporting outright imperialism, including the soft imperialism the neocons do if they can help it. However, push comes to shove, I'd probably trend right on foreign policy than left. Because 1s and 2s here are basically anti the nation, and I support my nation. I dont like interventionism much, but i see it as a lesser evil. In terms of ideals, I'm like a 3, but I might behave like a 4 in practice. Again, the scale is kinda weird here. But, this is how I view the spectrum from left-right, and it's hard to sum up the entire spectrum of beliefs based on one scale sometimes.
Measuring different people
So now let's measure different people on my scale.
Me: Economics-3, Social- 4, Foreign policy- 4.
I'm a liberal with socdem/social libertarian economics basically.
Joe Biden: Economics- 4, Social- 4, Foreign policy- 3.5.
He's a liberal through and through.
Hillary Clinton: Economics- 4.5, Social- 4, Foreign policy- 4
She's a bit to the right of Biden but still overall the same ideology.
Bernie Sanders: Economics- 2.5, Social- 3.5, Foreign policy- 3.5
A bit more progressive on economics, but not radically different than establishment liberals. Clinton ironically outflanked him to the left on identity based issues, but again, her protestantism made her more conservative in other ways, so...
Andrew Yang- Economics, 3, Social- 4, Foreign policy- 4
Pretty mainstream lib with more progressive economics.
Marianne Williamson- Economics- 2.5, Social- 3, Foreign policy- 3
A bit to the left on social policy and foreign policy, kinda signalling to leftists while not quite being one of them. Bernie like economics.
Jill Stein- Economics- 2, Social- 2, Foreign policy- 2
Actual leftist, most greens are this these days. Cornel West and Howie Hawkins get the same score.
Barack Obama- Economics- 4, Social- 4, Foreign policy- 3.5
He actually came off as very progressive in 2008 on foreign policy, although in practice governed like a 4. Economics and social wise he was a mainstream lib.
Bill Clinton- Economics- 5, Social- 5, Foreign policy- 4
Center right in practice. Made compromises to the GOP.
Lyndon Johnson- Economics- 3, Social- 3, Foreign policy- 6
Extremely progressive for his time, he got civil rights done, he had the war on poverty, but vietnam is a blight on his presidency.
Franklin Roosevelt- Economics- 3, Social- 6, Foreign policy- 4
Based on economics, was pretty conservative socially as the product of his times, foreign policy was essentially liberal, 3 in his first few terms, but given his behavior in WWII, I'd call him a 4.
Donald Trump- Economics- 5.5, Social- 6.5, Foreign policy- 5
Kind of moderate for a conservative, but more psychotic on the social issues, especially as time has gone on. Is starting to get scary, like a 7, which is why I'm really taking such a hard line against him.
Ron DeSantis- Economics- 6, Social- 6.25, Foreign policy- 6
Typical conservative, also has some authoritarian qualities but not as much as Trump.
Nikki Haley- Economics- 6, Social- 6, Foreign policy- 6
Claims to be the "moderate conservative" but moderate is relative. Just read as "not fascist or borderline fascist."
George W. Bush- Economics- 6, Social- 6, Foreign policy- 6
Known for being a neocon, reagan conservative, and religious righter. Almost seems moderate in today's republican party.
Ronald Reagan- Economics- 6, Social- 6, Foreign policy- 6
The OG "666" conservative of the modern era. He kinda was the great realigner.
Richard Nixon- Economics- 5, Social- 6, Foreign policy- 6
Socially conservative and very interventionist, but economically, he was pretty liberal.
Ron Paul- Economics- 6.5, Social- 5, Foreign policy- 5
Paleocon on foreign policy, extremely libertarian on economic policy, socially libertarian but will wrap back around to being conservative at times.
That should give you an idea. Again, these scales are typically calibrated where 2 = leftist, 4 = liberal, 6 = conservative with 1, 3, 5, and 7 being different degrees of nuance and extremes between the ideologies.
Again I self identify at this point as a 3E/4S/4F (that's the short way to identify people on this scale). I admittedly have gotten slightly more conservative than I used to, back in the 2010s, you might've had me calling myself more like a 2.5E/3S/3F, but yeah I have gotten slightly more moderate socially and on foreign policy. Or perhaps recognized I wasn't as far left as I thought I was either. But yeah, I think this score works, it's relatively easy to understand and consistent, and I'll be using it going forward.
For reference, leftists who gatekeep? Yeah often times they're 2E/2S/2F or maybe 3E/3S/3F at the very least. Generally people who call themselves leftists are 2s, those who call themselves progressives are 3s, and liberals are 4s, pretty easy to understand.
No comments:
Post a Comment