I was fascinated to read the progression of your own thinking and appreciate the link to the political model you have put together. Amongst other things, it bears out the observation that we likely need multiple axes of more sophisticated descriptions than simply ‘left’ and ‘right’.

You might also be interested in some of these efforts to re-map or re-model political axes, such as The Political Compass

I’ll have a closer look at yours and get back with a more considered response. (And a question: what’s “ochlocracy”?) Quip: I’m sure its not a political ideology from Scotland! ;)

Locating the link above to send to you gave me occasion to stumble upon other sites. I took Nolan’s The World’s Smallest Political Quiz (just 10 ten short questions in contrast to the more comprehensive Political Compass test).

I’d be interested in:
a. what you think of it, and
b. where you came on the quadrant grid!

I wasn’t surprised with my result. I was located in the Left but close to the Libertarian border! I last did the Political Compass about 8 years ago, and will have to see if the result has changed—I may post on this next, actually.

More on the rest of your interesting comment shortly.

As the site of the holy lands and origin of three major world religions; some of the longest continuous cities in civilization; and the source of most of the ‘black gold’ that underpins our standard of living; the future of the region—as with its past—may well be pivotal to the future of the world.

Salaam and welcome to you.

If you will forgive me in advance I have a long, drawn out commentary along these subjects. I would rather email them, but I hope you don’t mind me inserting here.

I have a photostatic copy of my old article left, I believe, and I have the original type-written (on eraseable paper–my typing skills have not always been the best–eraseable typing paper was the original “word processor” ha!). I will dig it from my files and try to get it to you.

I have always been a bit of a maverick. Don’t mean to be, but I guess its my nature. I think the true reason was that the “herd” was often frightening for me, and I often sought retreat in the solace of my own thoughts and analysis. The sum total of which…

…I come up with some pretty crazy stuff and have had to change my mind (“eat crow” as we say over here) on more than one occasion. It was that distasteful dining habit that brought about a bit of my caution. It helps me some, but not all, and I catch myself eating my own words even now.

and…

…the realization that there are others in this world that think the same way I do. Every time in my life I thought that I came up with something new and original I found later that someone, somewhere, somehow had already said it or thought it.

But such is what the good Lord uses to keep us humble. ha!

You are one of the few people I have ever talked to who had the insight you do into the Berlin Wall. The American perspective was, “Geez! Look at what just happened!” and it took many by surprise. Admittedly I was not. Not because of any great cognizance on my part, but because the signs, the change, the evolution had been in place for years. Of course I think this has to do with the nature of people. They tend to live in the now, and quickly forget the past.

Of course this may change with the advent of the internet. We are truly living in the age of information (and MISinformation!).

Ok, to address your thoughts on the “either/or” issue I offer a crude model of how I see things. Keep in mind that this is a crude model, and probably needs much work, but it’s a start.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v478/JackMercer/model.jpg

The upper hemisphere on this circle represents the social/political/economic principles based on individualism. The lower illustrates egalitarian aims. Of course this is always the human struggle–one system of thought thinks that decisions need to be made for the individual, the other wants to think and do for itself. You and me, Ann, fit in that upper hemisphere, the realm of personal responsibility, faith in humanity and its acheivements, and the fundamental belief that humans should be allowed to largely chart their own course of existence. The lower half largely subscribes to a doctrine that people cannot be trusted, outcomes need to be controlled and charted in the way the collective or ruling body sees fit. Our two great nations were largely founded on the former foundation, and we reap the benefits of that.

Now using a democracy (individualism) as a reference point, moving either to the right or the left takes us away what you and I find idyllic toward the egalitarian side of the model. In doing so, we pass through varying political, economic and social degrees. It is the movement that poses for us moral dilemmas.

The similarities that you mentioned and we note, the things that don’t seem to be “either/ors” play out dependent upon our movement within this model. We see the movement and recognize where a certain policy might lead, but don’t quite know whether it is a good or bad thing. The direction in which we move is only guided by one factor–motive.

The interesting thing is that the leftward trend (liberalism) is less egocentric and appears on the surface to be much more “moral.” For that reason it seems more “noble.” In other words, if it is for the good of all that we sacrifice individual rights, isn’t that ok? Doesn’t the end justify the means? Liberalism justifies its movement toward egalitarianism based on lofty ideals (redistribution of wealth–wouldn’t it be great if everyone were rich!, gun control – collective security/safety is good thing!, environmental control–who doesn’t want a clean and pure world to live in! etc.) It is for this reason that many liberals define themselves and their ideals as being morally superior, and if one thinks about it, they ARE superior than the other directional movement away from democracy (radicalism–for want of a better term)–movement that is motivated more by egocentricity than anything else.

Now to me, an originalist/libertarian, I endeavor to stand firm on the precepts of individualism, so I tend to be an absolutist in terms of movement. As our Patrick Henry says, “Give me liberty or give me death!” It is rare that I think the end justifies the mean because I see an end that is the natural result of human nature (domination and control over others). This causes me to look at socialistic policy (which could be anything from Keynesian economics–protectionism, regulation, taxation as a means of economic stimulation, to gun control) as an additional step down the path of tyrrany, and I struggle to find myself supporting any initiative that takes away those freedoms. Not even when it sounds like a good idea (seat belt laws, torte reform, marriage bans, cigarette laws, child rearing laws, hate crime laws), do I tend to budge, driven by the singular ideal that:

“I would rather be exposed to the inconvenience attending too much Liberty than those attending too small degree of it.” Thomas Jefferson

Ann, although the world is full of bad people there is also a world of good ones. The problem with laws are that they are only obeyed by the lawful–the bad people do not abide by the rules of civil society. I believe also that there are more good people than bad–and have a great deal of faith in humanity. The egalitarian mind does not, it looks at individuals as children who must be ruled and controlled with definitive parameters. It makes laws for good people. It is the parent that tells their child they HAVE to share, have to eat all of their vegetables. Children are not to be trusted to even take care of themselves or attend their responsibilities, therefore the need for a parent or guardian. So the Nanny State is called in to sit the child and make sure they should behave as good citizens should.

Ann, when I became an adult I appreciated my adulthood. I reveled in it, took it very seriously, and earned it. I put my pants on the same way that President Bush or Jacques Chirac does–I am not better or no less a man (or woman than anyone else), but I appreciate the dignity and respect that responsible adults should all share. Inalienable rights.

Ann, I used to recommend to my students that they play around with the graph–try to plot historical events, political ideas, etc. on it and even challenged some to try to refine and define it a little better. Maybe you, time permitting, could refine such concepts and communicate them much better than I ever could.

I leave you with one of my favorite quotes of all time. It was from a movie called “Demolition Man” starring Sylvester Stallone. There was a character played by Dennis Leary who was the a resistance leader placed in a futuristic setting. While I do not necessarily agree with it in content, I do in principl:)

“You see, according to Cocteau’s plan I’m the enemy, ’cause I like to think; I like to read. I’m into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I’m the kind of guy likes to sit in a greasy spoon and wonder – “Gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecued ribs with the side order of gravy fries?” I WANT high cholesterol. I wanna eat bacon and butter and BUCKETS of cheese, okay? I want to smoke Cuban cigar the size of Cincinnati in the non-smoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green jello all over my body reading playboy magazine. Why? Because I suddenly might feel the need to, okay, pal? I’ve SEEN the future. Do you know what it is? It’s a 47-year-old virgin sitting around in his beige pajamas, drinking a banana-broccoli shake, singing ‘I’m an Oscar Meyer Wiener’.”

Your friend,

-Jack