Deinonychus antirrhopus

You know what always amazes/disgusts me about this line of reasoning?

Confront someone of the Left w/ the stupidities of Michael Moore, Susan Sontag, ANSWER, Noam Chomsky, any of the Hollywood crowd, or Teddy Kennedy or Al Gore on their more stupid days, and they immediately shove them away w/ both hands, declaiming, "They're the fring, they're not of the Left!" (More rarely, you'll hear, "But that's the Left, and I'm not a Lefty, just a liberal!"). And they're quite insulted that you'd lump THEM all together. (This is why I've taken to concluding that there is no Left, b/c everyone who might be a member of it is busily denying that they are.)

BUT

Make the argument that, somehow, being conservative does not mean that you agree or accept the KKK, David Duke, or Trent Lott's more stupid days, and it's dismissed out of hand. Thus, the Left are not responsible for the sins of Michael Moore or Maxine Waters, but conservatives ARE responsible for the sins of Anne Coulter.

Steve, I don't know if you know this or not but the Political Compass tool is a recruitment gateway for Libertarians; no matter how you answer the questions the results are supposed to make you think, "Hey, I'm part libertarian? Maybe I should read more up on these folks!"

I have always preferred that definition of the political spectrum that puts totalitarian/authoritarian on the extreme left and anarchy on the extreme right. Moving from left to right takes one along a path of increasing liberty, from right to left a path of increasing government control. That way fascism and communism are on the same end of the spectrum - the left. And they should be. After all, they only represent different excuses for the same thing - totalitarianism.

The confusing thing is that libertarians are often allied with and sometimes mistaken for conservatives because of a shared preference for individual liberty over "social justice".

Trying to figure out what somebody means by left or right can be a real challenge. You can never be sure what they mean, and you can't be sure they know either.

My results from the Political Compass:

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 1.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.28

That is, I am very slightly above and to the right of dead center.

I would have thought I'd have scored much more authoritarian. Maybe they really are trying to turn me. But it is too late for me. I have already been shown the true power of force.

Steve-- I think you miss the point, unless you identify with WorldNetDaily politically (are you really "rightwing"?). There are libertarians who are ruthlessly independent and more power to them-- or rather less power to them, since such independent libertarians don't have much political power out there.

But then there are the libertarians who have allied with the New Right Christian fundamentalists and southern Confederate types in order to elect GOP representatives. And they do tolerate authoritarians on the Right. And have responsibility for them if they ally with them.

And yes, which is the point of the story posted-- too many leftists do the same thing with left authoritarian groups. And those groups should be denounced too.

On my blog, I've attacked Trent Lott's association with racists and attacked antiwar alliances with the WWP/ANSWER.

What do you object to in that stance?

Tom, Fascism actually is an ideology of the Left - in that it is a varient of socialism. It believes in a high degree of state control of the economy. It just isn't a form of Marxism. For a long time, the Left has adopted the Bolshevik propaganda that all ideologies except "true communism" are right wing.

I think that your scale isn't as useful as a two dimensional one.

What do you object to in that stance?

I object to the use of generic terms without the qualifiers. I do try to put in qualifiers. For example, I'd write something like,

"Some on the Left....

or

"Lefty Loons (not everybody ont he Left is a loon though)....

I may fail to always put in the qualifiers, but I do try.

As a philosophical anarchist and a practical libertarian (small l) I have found that merely failing to be rabidly anti-Bush is quite enough to get me put in the Right Wing by my university colleagues.

I propose a new group to oppose. Just as the Left is getting all exercised over "neo-cons" perhaps someone should get exercised over "neo-Coms" -- those who fail to renounce the known failures and shortcomings of the USSR, China, NKorea, et al and insist on more centralization of power. Neo-Communism, the shame that dares not say its name.

Jorg:

Isn't that a liberal?

That isn't the test that is the big-L Libertarian recruiting tool. It is the "World's Smallest Political Quiz" that is the Libertarian recruitment tool. It was written by the founder of some libertarian advocacy group (his name was *something* Fitz, I believe).

However, they do both use the two-dimensional Nolan chart.

Nathan misses an important point -- the "authoritarians of the Right" are hardly in any position to get their agendas advanced. I've yet to hear any legislatures considering anti-blasphemy laws or any (non-religious) colleges mandating religious instruction, but we do have "hate speech" laws and mandatory "diversity" courses.

When the day comes -- and I have no doubt it will -- that the Right is more of a danger to my freedom and person than the Left, then my votes will switch. And until then, I'll vote against individuals on the Right I consider deserving of it.

"Which of course highlights why the rightwing is kind of silly to itself spend too much time talking breathlessly about fringe groups, when it tolerates Klan allies and abortion doctors in its midst. I wonder how many exposes WND has done on those?"

I did a double-take, when I read this. Why wouldn't WND do exposes on these support groups of the Democratic Party? Klan allies? Can you say Robert Byrd, former Democratic Senate Majority Leader? Abortion doctors, who do they support? Pro-Life Republicans? Huh!?!

Glenn,

I remember a thread on Democratic Underground that had that test. Most of the denizens scored high on the authoritarian scale, and a couple of them acted suprised. "I'm not an authoritarian! I'm a socialist!" -- I'm not making that one up.

Robin, as you say, we may consider fascism an ideology of the left, but the left does not. The issue can be even more confusing when you read news from European sources that mention left and right. It's hard to have any notion as to what they mean. I suppose there is some value in identifying one as a social conservative verses economic conservative. But we should keep in mind that socialism and communism are not really progressive, any more than libertarianism is conservative. What we get to in the final analysis, is a discussion of what is an appropriate level of government control for whatever reason it may be exercised. Limitation on the power of government is the great experiment that is America.

It's my opinion that the "single dimensional" scale is more useful in keeping the focus where I think it ought to be, which is on the legitimate use of or limitation on government control. Dave's comment to Glenn about the surprise of the leftists at the Democratic Underground to find that they score high on the authoritarian scale is an interesting illustration. Many on the left have no clue that what they espouse is most often a destruction of liberty.

That isn't the test that is the big-L Libertarian recruiting tool. It is the "World's Smallest Political Quiz" that is the Libertarian recruitment tool ... However, they do both use the two-dimensional Nolan chart.

Damn, got them confused because of that chart, Thanks Jayson!

Glenn,

I remember a thread on Democratic Underground that had that test. Most of the denizens scored high on the authoritarian scale, and a couple of them acted suprised. "I'm not an authoritarian! I'm a socialist!" -- I'm not making that one up.

:) For some reason this doesn't surprise me! I remember one evening after classes back in my college days this budding liberal genius ranted on and on about how Reagan was evil and wanted to take away all of our freedoms. He then breathlessly marched into an argument where he defended taking children from parents and having them state raised and educated, to protect them from bad parents.

Yeah, lets all vote Hillary in '08!