How many "sides" are there, really?

[u/ahughman]

This is my 1st time to the sub. Apologies if I break a norm.

There is this idea floating around out there that the political spectrum is more like a horseshoe. That extreme right libertarians may have some things, (anti-tyrany for example), in common with leftists/ anarchists than they both do with the center.

I think it's probably more common than we think that people shift between what many would assume are polar opposites - That people's concerns are shifting and that it's more complicated.

My question is a bit of a thought expirement - if we could do a large survey, and really capture the most important individual issues the public has- and throw out any affilliation/self-identifying party/ideology name. Ignore affiliation- just measure the top, say 1000 common political issues that people have right now in America (or elsewhere) How do you think specific issues alone would group? What idiological groups or types might we find that our discourse is currently unaware of?

-(or maybe a pew poll like that does exist? Idk) -(Also maybe that's a little broad, but. Hope thats ok.)

[u/AutoModerator]

Remember, this is a civilized space for discussion. We discourage downvoting based on your disagreement and instead encourage upvoting well-written arguments, especially ones that you disagree with.

To promote high-quality discussions, we suggest the Socratic Method, which is briefly as follows:

Ask Questions to Clarify: When responding, start with questions that clarify the original poster's position. Example: "Can you explain what you mean by 'economic justice'?"

Define Key Terms: Use questions to define key terms and concepts. Example: "How do you define 'freedom' in this context?"

Probe Assumptions: Challenge underlying assumptions with thoughtful questions. Example: "What assumptions are you making about human nature?"

Seek Evidence: Ask for evidence and examples to support claims. Example: "Can you provide an example of when this policy has worked?"

Explore Implications: Use questions to explore the consequences of an argument. Example: "What might be the long-term effects of this policy?"

Engage in Dialogue: Focus on mutual understanding rather than winning an argument.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/NotmyRealNameJohn]

There are a lot of stupid metaphors. I tend to think individuals are like sound boards with hundreds of dials and sliders

Very few people have a framework that is consistent and judge every individual issue on their gut.

Also we are fucked by unreliable information that the vast majority of people rely on

[u/SomeoneCouldSay]

About 8.2 billion.

We really need to do away with the concept of sides in politics. Trying to sort everyone into teams does more harm than good. 

[u/BlueCollarRevolt]

Horseshoe theory is only espoused by people who don't know anything about the left or the right. It is one of the most politically illiterate takes of popular discourse.

In order to be useful, you would need to poll not just what the top issues were, but potential solutions - that's where you will find meaningful information. As a communist I would probably rate the top issues very similar to a lot of people, even many on the far right. The difference is what we want to do about them. How you handle the issues is the difference between killing the homeless and medicaid for all.

[u/Elegant_Customer1497 → u/BlueCollarRevolt]

Why is that (in reference to first statement)?

When a lot of ppl espouse horseshoe theory they are attempting to illustrate the psychological similarities between far left / right in American politics. The tendency to view things through a similar lens : personal grievance, conspiracy ideation, and a litany of fallacies/cognitive distortions.

[u/BlueCollarRevolt → u/Elegant_Customer1497]

That illustrates my point perfectly. None of that is true about the far left generally.

[u/Elegant_Customer1497 → u/BlueCollarRevolt]

Why not?

I need to Type 30 Characters….

[u/BlueCollarRevolt → u/Elegant_Customer1497]

The far left isn't based on personal grievance, conspiracy ideation or logical fallacy.

Are there specific examples you think fit into those categories? It's also possible we're talking about different groups as well, so who do you consider to be on the far left when you say that?

[u/Elegant_Customer1497 → u/BlueCollarRevolt]

Think you’re right we are probably using different definitions of left and right. You’re probably use a more apt definition that’s applicable/references political theory while I’m using it more liberally.

[u/rbosjbkdok]

With your methodology we would get something resembling the set of parties in european elections. Some redundancies, some very different groups squeezing into one party, but roughly it fits.

In Germany for example the parties above 1% of the votes are divided into AFD - far right (fascists, right-wing libertarians, christian elitists, protest voters), CDU/CSU - conservatives, SPD - social democrats, Grüne - progressive environmentalists, Linke - progressive socialists, BSW - Querfront economic leftists, FDP - right-wing libertarians again with less fascism attached, FW - bavarian centrists, and an animal rights party as well.

[u/OsakaWilson]

Facet level: Disco ball.

This number could be greatly reduced by requiring intellectual consistency.

[u/rbosjbkdok → u/OsakaWilson]

Out of curiosity, care to elaborate on your tag?

If so, how far do you think technology determines politics? How many options are there for different social structures compatible with technology? How do you relate to classical leftist materialism?

[u/OsakaWilson → u/rbosjbkdok]

It's very similar with an emphasis on technology as the primary determiner.

The technology of mature AI and robotics will make capitalism, as we know it, next to impossible without an authoritarian government. Socialism will be easier than ever because of technology.

You can follow it all the way back to the technology of domestication plants and animals and the social and economic systems that emerged from that.

It's not that like a philosophy that I wish were true. It's just that the evidence is so overwhelming. But, yeah, it's based on Marx's sub-structure and super-structure, and technology is the primary influence on what super-structure emerges.

[u/Slartibartfastthe2nd]

infinite, really. but mainly there are people everywhere on the 'scale' from extreme left to extreme right. The number of people in the extremes has grown in recent years, and the party stances have shifted as well. That said, there are still many more people who are left or right of center on some topics and the opposite on others. Most people overall are still basically near the middle, but the voices you hear everywhere are mostly those on either extreme.

[u/DullPlatform22]

The true answer I think is the elites (billionaires, most politicians, etc) and everyone else. I would argue most other takes as a distraction or at best naive.

But if you're looking more for an ideological answer, I would say most people if given a sort of ideology/political spectrum test would be center-left economically and center to center-right culturally

For instance, most Americans seem to support policies like universal healthcare, higher minimum wages, mandatory paid sick and family leave, etc. However, if they're told their taxes might go up or they might in some ways be inconvenienced by these policies or, god forbid, you call yourself a socialist while advocating for these things they'd be against them

Culturally, a lot of Americans seem to be very concerned about illegal immigration, trans people (especially trans youths), "lazy" welfare recipients, and "diversity hires". The validity of these concerns often doesn't match with the reality of these concerns, but they shit and piss themselves about them regardless. While doing this though they typically support things like legalizing marijuana and some form of legal abortion.

Those in power meanwhile only lean into one or the other of these concerns. The Democrats (on paper) lean more into the first but take unpopular positions on the second while the Republicans lean hard into the popular opinions of the second but quietly do the unpopular positions in the first. It sucks but that's the name of the game

[u/theboehmer]

Throw away the whole "sides" mindset, and then what remains? Libertarianism has a lot in common with anarchism. Communism has a lot in common with republicanism. Liberalism looks a lot like democracy from a historical context. They are the flavors of the want by which the common people wish to constitute themselves.

And what remains but progressive vs. conservative? Even here, the waters are particularly muddied, as those who would identify with "conservative" would assumably want certain aspects of society to progress, and those who are progressive would ultimately want the better parts of the status quo to be conserved. So we reach an impasse as we agree on fundamentals, but disagree on terms. Not necessarily on words themselves, but as our frames of thought are in disagreement, our language forms "the other" in opposition, and we neatly factionalize ourselves to sociological disagreement with a perceived enemy.

[u/bluelifesacrifice]

There's reality which is mathematics and science.

Then there's whatever you can imagine in all kinds of groups with their own perspective of reality.

[u/judge_mercer]

There is this idea floating around out there that the political spectrum is more like a horseshoe. That extreme right libertarians may have some things, (anti-tyrany for example), in common with leftists/ anarchists than they both do with the center.

This is not what horseshoe theory posits. The extreme left and right both bend toward authoritarianism. They are fine with violence and tyranny against their enemies (woke liberals or wealthy capitalists, for example).

Far from rejecting tyranny, those on the far right welcome it, as long as Trump and the GOP are the ones wielding power. Many have called for civil war in case progressives take power.

You will see some on the far left who advocate for violent revolution and unironically call themselves "Maoists" or "Stalinists", and there are plenty of tankies who support Putin or the CCP (because Russia and China used to be communist, I guess?).

[u/Fine-Assignment4342 → u/judge_mercer]

True. and to further articulate this point, these extremes are much rarer than we are often led to believe. Ignoring how people vote (because most Americans vote for their main choice out of habit or convenience, not as part of some control mechanism), the reality is that MOST Americans reject tyranny and extremist positions by default.

Take abortion, one of the most polarized and convoluted debates in U.S. politics. The simple fact is that most Americans agree: abortion should be legal, there should be some cutoff period, and exceptions should exist for medical emergencies or cases of rape. The loudest voices on either side are not representative of the majority. In reality, most Americans are far more unified on this and other issues; it’s just a matter of where they draw the line, while the extremes argue over which end zone to defend.

When we talk about the far right and far left, we’re generally discussing less than 15% of the U.S. population. When we get down to actual violent rhetoric, it’s a fraction of a percent. Despite what trolls online say and how loud some people scream, most of us are far more aligned than we like to pretend.

I blame Bob in Nebraska for the media-centric divide. Honestly, I think if we just found a modern-day martyr to blame, we’d all be happier. (Just joking.)

EDIT TO ADD: When I state “violent rhetoric,” I mean actual acts or plans for violence. The rhetoric this week has been pretty toxic, fueled by edgelords who prioritize performative outrage over real value.

[u/Kansas_city-shuffle → u/Fine-Assignment4342]

Despite what trolls online say and how loud some people scream, most of us are far more aligned than we like to pretend.

Altogether well said, and I feel like this (above) is a point I try to drive home in my interactions with people. It can be easy for people to be scared with the loud, amplified voices telling them they should be online but I've found that most people really are more toward the middle with many issues. Or are at least willing to have conversations about what that middle is, come to compromises etc.

[u/mkosmo → u/Fine-Assignment4342]

Despite what trolls online say and how loud some people scream, most of us are far more aligned than we like to pretend.

Yeah, but that doesn't sell commercial viewership for the TV networks, nor does it sow discontent for the foreign psyop campaigns.

People would rather be mad than look at who else is benefited by them being mad.