4 ms·

I think drawing a line near the median is really the only thing that makes sense. These concepts are relative by nature. Generally, when speaking of how far to

I think drawing a line near the median is really the only thing that makes sense. These concepts are relative by nature. Generally, when speaking of how far to the right or left someone is in the US, I think of it as relative to other americans, not to the rest of the world, and especially not relative to some absolute concept of right and left (which falls apart quickly if you give it some thought, as norms change over time)

justin66 7y ago
> These concepts are relative by nature. Okay, the concepts are relative by nature (arguments about the two-dimensional nature of the left-right axis notwithstanding). In that case, place the concepts (or perhaps the individual ideologies that bundle the concepts) on a distribution and draw a line near the perceived median. That's the sort of thing you see in some poly-sci texts, and it makes sense. My point was that it is a mistake to place people on a left-right distribution based on their positions and call the people in, for example, the first quartile the "far left." > I think of it as relative to other americans, not to the rest of the world, and especially not relative to some absolute concept of right and left The problem is, applied universally this approach of quantifying things would make it appear as though every place possesses the same diversity of political thought, whether you're talking about Europe, the United States, or North Korea. This is simply not the truth. edit: another problem is that it can cause people whose views are much closer together than, for example, socialists vs fascists, to view each other as being on opposite ends of an ideological spectrum and combatants in a bitter ideological struggle, even though that's objectively ridiculous. Remind you of anyplace?
- antepodius 7y ago
  They are locked in a desperate struggle, though- the struggle for votes. They're competing for the same resource. That's why they're hostile towards each other. Actual political differences are icing on the cake.
- friendlybus 7y ago
  Having the tyrants fight each other in a battle they cannot win is good everyday politicking. Would you prefer they work together? It's an order of managed conflicts, not a descriptive, scientific system of unified political positions.
dfxm12 7y ago
A lot of political science is not really relative. I mean, you can understand the Democrats' and Republicans' positions as relative to each other or even to themselves since they're both always changing, but a reactionary position is by definition more conservative than a progressive position. Calling the median between today's US Democrats and Republicans "moderate" or "centrist" is not really indicative of any political theory. I really think the problem is Democrat and Republican are too closely thought of as "left" and "right" or "liberal" and "conservative", however, the parties are distinct from the political theory.

justin66 7y ago

> These concepts are relative by nature. Okay, the concepts are relative by nature (arguments about the two-dimensional nature of the left-right axis notwithstanding). In that case, place the concepts (or perhaps the individual ideologies that bundle the concepts) on a distribution and draw a line near the perceived median. That's the sort of thing you see in some poly-sci texts, and it makes sense. My point was that it is a mistake to place people on a left-right distribution based on their positions and call the people in, for example, the first quartile the "far left." > I think of it as relative to other americans, not to the rest of the world, and especially not relative to some absolute concept of right and left The problem is, applied universally this approach of quantifying things would make it appear as though every place possesses the same diversity of political thought, whether you're talking about Europe, the United States, or North Korea. This is simply not the truth. edit: another problem is that it can cause people whose views are much closer together than, for example, socialists vs fascists, to view each other as being on opposite ends of an ideological spectrum and combatants in a bitter ideological struggle, even though that's objectively ridiculous. Remind you of anyplace?

antepodius 7y ago
They are locked in a desperate struggle, though- the struggle for votes. They're competing for the same resource. That's why they're hostile towards each other. Actual political differences are icing on the cake.
friendlybus 7y ago
Having the tyrants fight each other in a battle they cannot win is good everyday politicking. Would you prefer they work together? It's an order of managed conflicts, not a descriptive, scientific system of unified political positions.

dfxm12 7y ago

A lot of political science is not really relative. I mean, you can understand the Democrats' and Republicans' positions as relative to each other or even to themselves since they're both always changing, but a reactionary position is by definition more conservative than a progressive position. Calling the median between today's US Democrats and Republicans "moderate" or "centrist" is not really indicative of any political theory. I really think the problem is Democrat and Republican are too closely thought of as "left" and "right" or "liberal" and "conservative", however, the parties are distinct from the political theory.