Topic: Politics
A superior version of the Nolan Chart The political chart put out by the Republican Liberty Caucus seems to be more detailed and rational than others I have seen.by Dale Husband
(liberal)
Thursday, September 3, 2009
The chart featured on this Nolan Chart website has only five designations: Libertarian, Conservative, Liberal, Centrist, and Statist. But the version found on the RLC site has NINE.
Libertarians advocate the maximum amount of Personal and Economic Liberty, consistent with the defense of individual rights.
Fiscally conservative yet socially tolerant, libertarians favor lower taxes, free trade, individual rights and limited government.
Enterprisers advocate a moderate amount of Personal and Economic Liberty, with "good" government programs.
Enterprises usually support free markets and usually oppose restrictions on individual civil liberties.
Centrists advocate compromise on all issues of Personal and Economic Liberty, prefering to avoid any partisan or principled positions.
Centrists tend to support any "middle-of-the-road" position between the "left-right" and "liberty-tyranny" political spectrums.
Conservatives advocate a large amount of Economic Liberty, but favor a large government role in social issues.
Conservatives usually support free markets, private enterprise, strong police powers and cultural norms in social behavior.
Liberals advocate a large amount of Personal Liberty, but favor a large government role in economic issues.
Liberals usually support government economic regulation, income redistribution, police restraint and civil liberties.
Statists advocate big government solutions to all Personal and Economic issues, short of dictatorship.
Statists tend to support any government program that increases controls over economic transactions or individual liberties.
"Left-Wingers" advocate the maximum limits on Economic Liberties and the minimum limits on Personal Liberty.
Left-Wingers support any government controls on economic markets and oppose all controls on social liberties.
Right-Wingers" advocate the maximum limits on Personal Liberties and the minimum limits on Economic Liberty.
Right-Wingers support any government controls on social liberties and oppose all controls on economic liberties.
Authoritarians advocate strong government restraints on both economic and social issues. The opposite of Libertarian principles.
Authoritarians favor government ownership of property, restricted markets, strong police forces and social conformity.
This is much easier for me because I can give consideration to Centrists, Liberals, Conservatives, Enterprisers, and Statists, and completely ignore or disregard Right-winger, Left-winger, Libertarian, and Authoritarian positions. I fear ALL extremism and seek moderation in all things. I think on this chart I am definitely a "Liberal" but would not be a "Left-winger". Thus I would have no fellow feeling with a hard-core socialist.
Maybe if the Libertarian Party would try to take Enterpriser positions and attract more Enterpriser people, they would FINALLY start winning elections at the federal level. I have said something simular before, but now I have a word for what I want libertarians to be, instead of taking things to extremes as they have since the early 1970s.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 6 thumbs so far
The views expressed in this
article are those of Dale Husband only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Dale Husband is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Clifford Theis started the Liberty Index using the standard Nolan Chart, but when I undertook the task of putting it on the RLC website, I suggested the "intermediate" categories as a better way to comprehend the various labels used in normal political discourse. He agreed, and I created the LiberGraph, applying it to all the prior and subsequent years of Cliff's congressional ratings.
Several years later, Rasmussen used similar categories to more accurately define public political sentiments in their polling.
Your perspective that the four corners are "extreme" positions is practically true, but I'd be more inclined to call them "extremely principled" positions. Those lacking general philosophical principles like to think of themselves as "pragmatists", who tend toward the Centrist postions. If they perceive that a particular program might work, they have no qualms about using government coercion to implement it.
The other interesting quality of the LiberGraph is the matter of philosophical consistency. Those in the libertarian and totalitarian corners consistently support either liberty or coercion as the guiding principle of social governance, while those in the left and right corners hold inconsistent - and frequently incoherent - ideas about the proper role of government.
Another relatively significant LiberGraph variation is the labeling of the two axis. The Nolan Chart used degree of freedom, while ours uses the degree of liberty embraced by those who fall in each of the categories. The difference is significant because the "extreme" libertarian corner is not the maximum freedom, associated with anarchy, but the maximum commitment to individual rights, which is the basis for individual liberty. The opposite, totalitarian, corner represents a maximum commitment to collectivism, the opposite of individual liberty. So, in my opinion, those axis labels are a more accurate representation of the two opposing social ideals.
Finally, let me express my regrets that recent years are not included in the Liberty Index database. The task became far too time-consuming and cumbersome to perform while I had other obligations in the RLC (Chairman and now Treasurer). Hopefully, I can shed some of those burdens and bring the Liberty Index up-to-date with recent ratings in the not-to-distant future.
very informative comment. the point about anarchy and liberty is enlightening.
in that case, where would anarchy lie? it certainly couldn't be Statist and both the left and right seek instituted control. and since you mentioned the Libertarian apex is geared toward "maximum committment to individual rights", I can't see it falling in that area, since, if I understand it, an anarchist would be against any "collective" committment, but not necessarily against individual committment?
gene: "... in that case, where would anarchy lie?"
It depends on what rules (if any) the anarchist favors. There are communist-anarchists (who favor totalitarian control until all humans become "non-exploitative" saints), the fascist-anarchists (who want total freedom for the privileged and none for commoners), or the "capitalist" anarchists, who want commercial warfare ("protection agencies" who compete for the most efficient use of force). They could be anywhere on the chart, depending on what kind of "contractual rules" they wish to impose on their own clients or others.
The "anarchist defense agencies" are actually governments, who must initiate force against innocent non-clients, if anyone is to be held accountable for allegations of rights violations. Without initiating force, the pursuit of justice is impossible. Send me a proposed "anarchist defense agency" contract, which specifies the rules to be applied by force, and I'll tell you where they land on the chart.
that makes sense. if you stick anarchy at the top of the chart, it basically means "anybody can do anything they want", which also means "anyone can force someone else to do something they don't want to".
I could see a sucessful anarchist's society composed in relative isolation and overall low population, living peacefully. in essense, the "removal" of force from a group of humans by their own consent. it really wouldn't matter the structure, as long as they agreed on non agression without the threat of force as a detriment.
The Republican chart may have 10 or a hundred designations, but it doesn't matter. The bottom line is that the Republican and the Democratic party are just the two sides of a coin I call the Repucratic Party — the true and only comuno-fascist party of the USA.
A long time ago somebody said that there was not a dime of difference between Democrats and Republicans. Today this has changed: there is not a penny of difference between them.
Obama's policies are the seamless continuation of Bush's policies, which were the seamless continuation of Clinton's policies, which were the seamless continuation of ... ad infinitum. But, despite the fact that doing the same and expecting different results is an evident sign of insanity, the brainwashers of both the right and left keep repeating that just by changing the puppet in the White House everything will be okay. Unfortunately, most Americans, including the author of this article, seem to have been totally brinwashed to believe the obvious lie.
Is there a way to give a thumbs down to this article?
The reason there is so little difference between Democrats and Republicans, compared to political parties in other parts of the world, is that both major political parties attempt to appeal to centrists in order to win elections. Parties that appeal to absolute dogmatists, like the Greens, the Libertarians, and the Constitution parties, do not win elections, period! Other nations allow extreme parties to win offices and then form coalitions with other, more moderate parties to take control of the government, but that does not happen here because the design of the U S Constitution (single member districts, the electoral college) makes it impossible for extremists to win.
However,
Obama's policies are the seamless continuation of Bush's policies, which were the seamless continuation of Clinton's policies, which were the seamless continuation of ... ad infinitum.
No, that is simply not true. Otherwise, we would see Republicans and Democrats working together on things like health care reform instead of tearing each other down about it. And Reagan was very different in character from Carter, just as Carter was different from Ford and Nixon. You don't see the differences because you have no understanding of American politics. Slight, subtil differences are still differences and your failure to notice them is your fault, not mine.
if you stick anarchy at the top of the chart, it basically means "anybody can do anything they want", which also means "anyone can force someone else to do something they don't want to".
Exactly, gene! I've said for years that anarchy and tyranny are two different sides of the same destructive coin. One can quickly morph into the other due to their being no provision to protect human rights. And that's why I do not consider any corner of the Nolan Chart, including the uppermost (Libertarian) one, to be viable for long.
"Maybe if the Libertarian Party would try to take Enterpriser positions and attract more Enterpriser people, they would FINALLY start winning elections at the federal level."
Perhaps THE Mr. Nolan could chime in, but it's my understanding that it was never his intent that the LP win elections ... which requires finding common ground with the majority of voters. Until philosophical libertarians are a majority, they won't win anything, but they can use the political process to publicly advocate libertarian principles. That's a worthy objective, but it requires discarding compromises and sticking with principles ... which means that winning elections is not the purpose of the LP for a very long time into the distant future. Getting there is a challenge.
The LiberGraph is a good guide to where the Congress, and presumably voters, are today. Find a "cluster" of representatives on the chart and you probably have a set of viable campaign districts for that ideology.
As an Non-American this this chart revision has a lot going for it. I'm a Conservative-Enterpriser by this definition and I can live with it.
The problem with the Norlan chart is its US-centric and has no relationship with the real world.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
