Political spectrum

From Metapedia
(Redirected from Left-right spectrum)
Jump to: navigation, search
divided societies
Affirmative action
Civic nationalism
Contact hypothesis
Effects of race mixing
Ethnic heterogeneity
Hate crime
Islamization and anti-Islamization
Magic dirt
Melting pot
No-go area
Political spectrum
Racial genetic interests
White demographics
White flight

A political spectrum is a system which attempts to classify political positions upon one or more dimensions.

Left-right spectrum

The most well-known political spectrum is the left-right spectrum. However, how to define this is controversial and often debated.

See also Alt-Right, Far Left, Far Right, Left-wing politics, and Right-wing politics.


Various studies have stated that conservatives/rightists are more sensitive to "fear"/"anxiety" than liberals/leftists. This has been argued to reflect biological differences, such as brain differences regarding the amygdala between rightists and leftists. This may mean that leftists tend to display disastrous recklessness and unrealistic blind optimism, and to support often catastrophic "utopian" projects (such as Communism, Cultural Marxism, mass immigration, and so on).

"Liberal descriptions of the amygdala invariably describe it as ancient or primitive. They don’t come right out and say it but the suggestion is that the amygdala is sort of like the human appendix which occasionally becomes inflamed and results in appendicitis. It’s a holdover, a vestigial brain function which we modern, civilized people would be better off without [...] In fact, the amygdala mediates memory, facilitates emotional learning and apparently helps people identify the emotional states of others.There is even research suggesting amygdala size correlates with the size of a person’s social network,i.e. how many friends you have. But what’s really missing from Mooney’s description is any sense that the amygdala is an important part of the human personality, one we definitely don’t want to live without. [...] Monkeys who’ve had lesions to their amygdala will play with snakes. Like psychopaths, their fearlessness means they may put themselves in real danger. In the case of humans, indiscriminate openness to new experiences might include a willingness to experiment with crystal meth or heroine or crack. Unlike trying new foods, there’s real (as opposed to imagined) danger involved with doing these things. And, again, the extreme left end of the “openness” continuum may be a person who acts completely without fear of consequences to himself or others, i.e. a psychopath."[1]

It is unclear if "utopian" "rightists" such as anarcho-capitalists are similar to liberals or to conservatives on such biological measures.

Stated awareness of group differences

"Prof. Jussim finds that liberals are especially likely to disbelieve in group differences: [T]hose most likely to inaccurately underestimate real differences were liberals in denial about group differences. . . [I]ntelligence did not matter for this group. Brainy liberals were just as likely as dumb liberals to inaccurately minimize real differences. It’s the opposite for non-liberals. The smarter they are, the more likely they are to have an accurate understanding of group differences. This makes sense, since smart people are usually more knowledgeable about the world. Prof. Jussim wonders whether smart liberals have actually managed to block reality or whether they know the truth but refuse to admit it."[2]

See also stereotypes.

Masculinity and femininity

Studies have found that physically strong men and men who spend more time in the gym are more likely to have right-wing views.[3][4][5]

Another study found that "Female politicians with stereotypically feminine facial features are more likely to be Republican than Democrat, and the correlation increases the more conservative the lawmaker's voting record".[6]

r-K strategy

The left-right spectrum has also been argued to reflect differences regarding r-K strategy (see differential K theory), with conservatives being more K.[7]

See also Differential K theory: Anxiety and suicide on more K being associated with more anxiety, possibly related to above differences regarding amygdala and anxiety.

Classification of fascism and National Socialism

The classifications of fascism and National Socialism have been controversial. The common classification as Far Right (or even as just as Right) has been criticized by, for example, some libertarians, who see this classification as attempted guilt by association and state many differences with argued "correct" Right positions. A Leftist classification may be argued.

Proponents of liberal democracy have created classification systems based on "authoritarianism" (or similar concepts), which classify fascism and Communism as being similar. A related discussion is if National Socialist Germany was "totalitarian" as discussed in the Totalitarianism article.

Many proponents have argued for a Third Position.

Horseshoe and True Believer theories

See Horseshoe theory and True Believer.


A popular system is the "Nolan Chart", which uses two dimensions, argued to represent degrees of "economic freedom" and "personal freedom". It has been criticized as biased in favor of libertarianism and was created by, and is promoted by, libertarians.

A study mathematically analyzing positions of German voters found that at least 4 dimensions were required to adequately represent all political parties.[8]

Ethnic homogeneity/heterogeneity

Politics have been argued to differ between ethnically homogeneous and ethnically heterogeneous societies. Singapore's leader Lee Kuan Yew, accused of supporting an authoritarian form of government, stated in a 2005 interview: "Why should I be against democracy? The British came here, never gave me democracy, except when they were about to leave. But I cannot run my system based on their rules. I have to amend it to fit my people's position. In multiracial societies, you don't vote in accordance with your economic interests and social interests, you vote in accordance with race and religion. Supposing I'd run their system here, Malays would vote for Muslims, Indians would vote for Indians, Chinese would vote for Chinese. I would have a constant clash in my Parliament which cannot be resolved because the Chinese majority would always overrule them."[9]

Likely related to the mass immigration and changing White demographics, White working class voters are deserting leftist parties across the Western world.[10]

John Stuart Mill: "Free institutions are next to impossible in a country made up of different nationalities.” This because when a society is composed of “a people without fellow-feeling . . . the united public opinion necessary to the working of representative government cannot exist."[11]

Increasing polarization

Political polarization has increased in, for example, the United States, between those identifying as Democrats and Republicans. This is largely due to Democrats moving to the left on several issues, such as due to Democrats becoming increasingly convinced that racial discrimination is the main barrier to Blacks "getting ahead". Democrats have also become increasingly convinced that the government must be more active on issues such as helping the "needy" (even if this increases debt) and "in world affairs".[12]

A less politically correct term for this is the "Great Awokening".

Increased ethnic heterogeneity in the United States, due to the mass immigration, is an argued main cause, with party voting increasingly following the racial divisions, and non-Whites favoring policies beneficial for themselves, such regarding spending on social services.[13] Based on voting data up to the 2012 election, "during the 1950s, both parties got at least 90 percent of their votes from whites in national elections. Now, nearly half of the voters for Democratic candidates are non-white, while the figure for Republicans has settled back down to about 10 percent. In the 1950s, almost half of all whites considered themselves Democrats; now, only 25 percent do. [...] the congressional elections of 2012. Fifty-nine percent of whites voted for Republican candidates while only 18 percent of non-whites did. The difference between those figures is huge: 41 percent. No other political divide comes close, not even the partisan difference between people who make over $100,000 as opposed to those who make less than $30,000. As the authors note: “The racial divide dwarfs divisions across class and other demographic characteristics that are supposedly central to the political arena.” This is true for elections without party labels: “Race outweighs all other demographic divides in nonpartisan local elections as well.” [...] Furthermore, it is non-whites–not whites–who vote along starkly racial lines. If 59 percent of whites voted Republican in the 2012 congressional elections it means 41 percent or so voted Democrat. But if only 18 percent of non-whites voted Republican it means more than 80 percent voted Democrat."[14]

A 2018 study stated increasing polarization along racial lines. In the minds of Americans, Republican and Democrat were beginning to stand for White and non-White. Class, religion, and ideology were less important than race.[15]

However, as of 2019, Whites who still identified as Democrats had also become radicalized. On some issues, opinions had even moved to the left of where Black and Hispanic opinions were. One explanation is that less radical Whites who had earlier been Democrats had become Republicans, leaving behind the more radical Whites. [16] Other possible explanations include an increasing "purity spiral" among White leftists, who possibly feel a need to virtue signal even more than non-White leftists, for reasons such as their supposed White guilt and White privilege.

Other proposed causes, not necessarily incompatible with virtue signalling, include the increasing influence of social media, radicalization of influential mass media such as the The New York Times, and/or "woke capital" cynically promoting racial and other "diversity" issues in order divert leftists from economic issues.[17]

Americans have been stated to have become more polarized on many other aspects than just voting, such as regarding which organizations they participate in, what media they consume, and where they live. This is associated with the growth of various much more distinctly partisan organizations and media. At the same time, Americans have increasingly lost trust in various traditional authorities, such as the government.[18]

Argued to be related to the increasing polarization, patriotism has sharply declined in the United States, especially among leftists and non-Whites, even when Obama was president.[19]

Two-party systems, such as in the United States, are often claimed, as a main advantage, to be more stable than multi-party systems. However, this may depend on factors such there being low polarization and high social trust in the country, with a two-party system possibly risking increasing the polarization in a polarized society even further. A 2016 study on insurgencies and civil wars in ethnically heterogeneous Latin America (with high ethnic heterogeneity tending to increase polarization and decrease social trust) stated that "two-party systems may polarize and lead to intense insurgency because they simplify the process of blame attribution, encourage the incumbent party to exclude its opponent from power positions, and motivate leaders to emphasize extreme ideological positions."[20]

Some conservatives believe that Hispanics are "natural conservatives", but actual evidence is argued to contradict this. See the Hispanics article and in particular the external links there.

IQ and democracy

Another issue is related to IQ and aspects such as the ability to understand and participate in political debates.

The 2009 book Limits to democratization stated that "all nations do not have equal chances to establish and maintain democratic systems. A central conclusion is that it is probably never possible to achieve the same level and quality of democracy in all countries of the world".[21] See also the article on Countries and intelligence.

Islamization and Islamo-leftism

Regarding Islam, it has been argued that "The Koran is said to be the literal, infallible word of God, so all good Muslims are fundamentalists in the Christian sense. Islam sees no distinction between government and religion, and seeks to regulate every aspect of life."[22] Thus, implementing an Islamist state may be considered a political ideology. See also Islamization and anti-Islamization.

Related is Islamo-leftism, a term for temporary alliances between Islamists and (far) leftists.

First Worldism vs Third Worldism

There are many important differences between the "First World" and the "Third World" (the "Second World" was the Communist countries). Such differences include differences regarding political views and policies. Thus, this can also be seen as a political dimension.[23]

These differences have been argued to be influenced by genetic population differences. Therefore, supporters of mass immigration from the Third World to the First World have been seen as in effect being supporters of that the First World should become like the Third World.[23]

External links


  1. Don't Fear the Amygdala, Progressives http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2012/05/17/don-t-fear-the-amygdala-progressives/
  2. A Blow Against Anti-White Science https://www.amren.com/features/2015/08/a-blow-against-anti-white-science/
  3. Muscular men less likely to support social and economic equality, study suggests https://www.brunel.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/articles/Muscular-men-less-likely-to-support-social-and-economic-equality-study-suggests#
  4. Men who are physically strong are more likely to have right wing political views http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2325414/Men-physically-strong-likely-right-wing-political-views.html
  5. Strong men more likely to vote Conservative http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/9197597/Strong-men-more-likely-to-vote-Conservative.html
  6. The GOP has a feminine face, UCLA study finds https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-09/uoc--tgh092712.php
  7. Anonymous Conservative http://www.anonymousconservative.com/blog/home-page/
  8. Alós-Ferrer, Carlos; Granić, Đura-Georg (2015-09-01). "Political space representations with approval data". Electoral Studies. 39: 56–71. doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2015.04.003
  9. SPIEGEL Interview with Singapore's Lee Kuan Yew: "It's Stupid to be Afraid" http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/spiegel-interview-with-singapore-s-lee-kuan-yew-it-s-stupid-to-be-afraid-a-369128.html
  10. Across the West, working-class voters are abandoning the Left http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/02/across-west-working-class-voters-abandoning-left/
  11. What We Owe Our People https://www.amren.com/news/2017/11/what-we-owe-our-people/
  12. Key takeaways on Americans’ growing partisan divide over political values http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/10/05/takeaways-on-americans-growing-partisan-divide-over-political-values/
  13. How race and religion have polarized American voters https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/01/20/how-race-and-religion-have-polarized-american-voters/
  14. Taming the White Beast https://www.amren.com/features/2016/03/taming-the-white-beast/
  15. Race is the Main Political Divide https://www.amren.com/commentary/2018/09/race-is-the-main-political-divide/
  16. The Great Awokening https://www.vox.com/2019/3/22/18259865/great-awokening-white-liberals-race-polling-trump-2020
  17. The Great Awokening Conspiracy Theory https://www.takimag.com/article/the-great-awokening-conspiracy-theory/
  18. Self-Segregation https://www.amren.com/news/2009/04/self-segregatio/
  19. Patriotism Requires a White Majority https://www.amren.com/commentary/2018/07/patriotism-requires-a-white-majority/
  20. How Do Party Systems Shape Insurgency Levels? A Comparison of Four Nineteenth-Century Latin American Republics https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/social-science-history/article/how-do-party-systems-shape-insurgency-levels-a-comparison-of-four-nineteenthcentury-latin-american-republics/1D89E39A48F7FCC7AC426C0613B68898
  21. Tatu Vanhanen. (2009) The Limits of Democratization: Climate, Intelligence, and Resource Distribution. Atlanta, GA: Washington Summit Publishers.
  22. The Islamic Threat https://www.amren.com/features/2012/02/the-islamic-threat/
  23. 23.0 23.1 See "First Worldism" and the articles linked there at http://thealternativehypothesis.org/index.php/first-worldism/