3 ms·

might it not be people who consider themselves right (and not extreme) but no longer feel the Republicans (the traditional right) truly represent them? The far

might it not be people who consider themselves right (and not extreme) but no longer feel the Republicans (the traditional right) truly represent them? The far-left/left/center-left etc and right side counterparts are defined by policy and ideology, so whether they feel the GOP was in touch doesn't really make a difference. You wouldn't call the Republicans "right" if they started handing out generous welfare packages to the masses.

woodman 10y ago
> You wouldn't call the Republicans "right" if they started handing out generous welfare packages to the masses. Like their pre-Obama universal healthcare proposals? The one dimensional political spectrum, with n-right vs n-left, doesn't work at all.
- icanhackit 10y ago
  > The one dimensional political spectrum, with n-right vs n-left, doesn't work at all. It's not a good way of accurately gauging the political spectrum but I'm not sure I'd say it doesn't work at all. A better method would be to add two more axes so you have x, y and z which would allow you to measure social policy (services, infrastructure), fiscal policy (an increase or decrease in state assets, taxation) and international relations (trade, alliances). The end result would be a kind of tetrahedron that represents the shape of a party's policy (that's not the point of it - it's just an interesting feature of having a three dimensional gauge).
  - woodman 10y ago
    > It's not a good way of accurately gauging the political spectrum but I'm not sure I'd say it doesn't work at all. As it fails in such a modest charge, I'm comfortable saying that it doesn't work. The only variable that it would come close to measuring is individual freedom vs collective comfort. A multidimensional representation would do a better job, but it would quickly become so complex that it would be useless - as most people hold contradictory ideas. That is why far-right does not accurately describe alt-right, think of it as a second dimension on the traditional spectrum.
    - icanhackit 10y ago
      > think of it as a second dimension on the traditional spectrum Maybe I'm missing something but in this thread I haven't seen anything that shows how the alt-right is fundamentally different to, despite the flawed labeling system, what is standard fare for the far-right. What sits in this second dimension, and does the rule apply to the left? Is it consistent?
      - woodman 10y ago
        I'm certainly no expert on the matter, but I'd doubt anyone who said they were. The first thing that comes to mind is that the alt-right is nationalistic and has no problem with some form of collectivism. The far-right, on the other hand, is much closer to the min part of minarchism. The alt-left, if it is presently a thing, is even less defined than the alt-right. But in the interest of maintaining symmetry, I'd say that it would have a progressive agenda by way of individualist means. Emergence?

woodman 10y ago

> You wouldn't call the Republicans "right" if they started handing out generous welfare packages to the masses. Like their pre-Obama universal healthcare proposals? The one dimensional political spectrum, with n-right vs n-left, doesn't work at all.

icanhackit 10y ago
> The one dimensional political spectrum, with n-right vs n-left, doesn't work at all. It's not a good way of accurately gauging the political spectrum but I'm not sure I'd say it doesn't work at all. A better method would be to add two more axes so you have x, y and z which would allow you to measure social policy (services, infrastructure), fiscal policy (an increase or decrease in state assets, taxation) and international relations (trade, alliances). The end result would be a kind of tetrahedron that represents the shape of a party's policy (that's not the point of it - it's just an interesting feature of having a three dimensional gauge).
- woodman 10y ago
  > It's not a good way of accurately gauging the political spectrum but I'm not sure I'd say it doesn't work at all. As it fails in such a modest charge, I'm comfortable saying that it doesn't work. The only variable that it would come close to measuring is individual freedom vs collective comfort. A multidimensional representation would do a better job, but it would quickly become so complex that it would be useless - as most people hold contradictory ideas. That is why far-right does not accurately describe alt-right, think of it as a second dimension on the traditional spectrum.
  - icanhackit 10y ago
    > think of it as a second dimension on the traditional spectrum Maybe I'm missing something but in this thread I haven't seen anything that shows how the alt-right is fundamentally different to, despite the flawed labeling system, what is standard fare for the far-right. What sits in this second dimension, and does the rule apply to the left? Is it consistent?
    - woodman 10y ago
      I'm certainly no expert on the matter, but I'd doubt anyone who said they were. The first thing that comes to mind is that the alt-right is nationalistic and has no problem with some form of collectivism. The far-right, on the other hand, is much closer to the min part of minarchism. The alt-left, if it is presently a thing, is even less defined than the alt-right. But in the interest of maintaining symmetry, I'd say that it would have a progressive agenda by way of individualist means. Emergence?