Connect with us

Conservatism

Demystifying the political spectrum

Published

on

Demystifying the political spectrum

Proving the rational basis for the Left-Right political spectrum by logical analysis.

The Socialist-Left loves to play fast and loose with the language, absurdly and ironically labeling anyone not of their collectivist, Far-Left mindset as being part of a socialist worker’s party in Germany. Beside that lie that denies basic historical facts, they also assert that a fascist group really isn’t fascist because of its name or they call themselves ‘Liberals’ while they oppose Liberty, because reasons.

All of this is an effort to confuse the issue to gain more adherents to their cause. Our purpose is to demystify all of this by placing the various ideologies on the spectrum in their proper places by logical analysis. Starting with a setting out of the general characteristics of the political Left and Right.

The Right side of the political spectrum has these general characteristics:

  • Limited government
  • Decentralized economic freedom
  • Individual liberty

The Left side of the political spectrum has these general characteristics:

  • Unlimited government
  • Centralised economic control
  • Collectivized coercion

These facts are under-girded by the definitions of the various political ideologies here and here.

These data points prove that the governmental power or collectivized control is the only logical method for establishing the political spectrum. Other metrics fall well short of any kind of rational analysis, governmental power or collectivized control is the only one that holds up under practical and logical realities.

Governmental power or collectivized control increases as one moves from Right to Left.

It is important to understand that the basic principles of the political spectrum are verified by the ideological definitions. The general characteristics of the political Left and Right set up this as a linear ‘progression’ based on the logical metric of governmental power or collectivized control. Beginning with a zero amount on the Far-Right and increasing to a maximum level at the far-Left. This standard is confirmed by the definitions of the most common and logical political ideologies.

The zero point on the Far-Right where there is no discernible governmental power corresponds to the ideology of anarchy. Minimal governmental power or collectivized control corresponds to Libertarianism, then the already established placement of Conservatism. Followed by Liberalism on the right side of the spectrum, since that ideology is also imbued in Liberty and individual rights. These are all under the auspices of individualism.

Over on the Left side of the political spectrum, there are the collectivist ideologies of Leftism, statism, fascism, socialism, communism, etc. in moving towards the far-left of the spectrum. Totalitarianism and Authoritarianism established the Far-Left end point at complete governmental power or collectivized control.

Demystifying the political spectrum also means addressing the Leftist Lies on the subject that are generally the source of most of the confusion and the reason many are befuddled as to where they sit on the Left-Right scale.

Despite being factually illogical, the Left keeps on insisting that authoritarianism can exist at the far right end of the spectrum instead of the ideology of anarchy. Then there is the equally absurd notion that ideology of anarchy somehow belongs somewhere at some mysterious point on the Left side of the political spectrum.

Proving the Obvious: Far-Right on the political spectrum is equivalent to the ideology of anarchy.

File this under we can’t believe we have to prove what should logically obvious, but a rational analysis proves that the Far Right has to correspond to anarchy instead of any type of authoritarianism – socialist or otherwise.

We have firmly established that the political spectrum is a measure of governmental power or collectivized control. With the Far Right of the spectrum equivalent to anarchy with no government or collectivized control and the Far Left of the spectrum equivalent to totalitarianism or authoritarianism with total government or collectivized control.

Note that we have already proven that the Nazis were a socialist worker’s party here, here, and here. By extension the closely related totalitarian ideology of fascism also belongs on the far-Left. Nevertheless, many on the Left insist on propagating the nonsensical Lie that the Far-right end of the spectrum logically defined as being no government is somehow an overwhelming authoritarian government of collectivized control. Never mind that the general precepts of the right are the antithesis of authoritarian government.

Discontinuities disprove Leftist lies about the Far-Right.

In the discipline of mathematics, a discontinuity signifies a break in the logic of a particular function. With the subject of the political spectrum, a discontinuity signifies something that cannot exist.

Consider that as we have established, the progression of the measurement of governmental power is on a negative slope moving towards the extreme right of the political spectrum to the value of zero at the end. Since any type of authoritarian ideology would require a non-zero value in the metric of governmental power or collectivized control. The placement at the Far Right would require an incredible discontinuity or jump in the graphical representation of this value.

This would be akin to a vehicle slowly decelerating to a speed of zero and then instantaneously accelerating. This would of course be physically impossible, as would the Far-Right being anything but the ideology of anarchy.

Similarly, the situating of the ideology of anarchy anywhere on the Left would result in a discontinuity in the opposite direction. The article in Vox calling for the Left to ‘reclaim guns’ from the Right: I’m a left-wing anarchist. It’s time to reclaim guns from the right. Was from a self-styled ‘left-wing anarchist’, this person is describing something that cannot logically exist: someone who simultaneously wants both no government and unlimited government. This is akin to describing an object as being matter and anti-matter at the same time, a physical impossibility.

The Takeaway.

Politics is an imperfect science because it’s based on imperfect beings, the best we can offer are logical approximations of the political spectrum. But those who choose to confuse the situation with illogical lies are only doing so for their own cynical advantage. The point here is to demystify the situation and inform where someone may be situated on the spectrum, not to account for every niche possibility.

These are important points to remember:

  • The general characteristics of the Right: Limited government, Decentralized economic freedom, Individual liberty
  • The general characteristics of the Left: Unlimited government, Centralized economic control, Collectivized coercion

The dictionary definitions prove out the logical arrangement of the political spectrum with the authoritarian ideologies belonging on the Left. The political right has the values of Limited government, Decentralised economic freedom, and Individual liberty. That is why most people would prefer to be on the right side of the spectrum and why the Left tries to confuse the issue.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Advertisement

0

Conservatism

Justin Amash exposed as only grandstanding on Trump impeachment

Published

on

Justin Amash exposed as only grandstanding on Trump impeachment

Earlier this week, the House of Representatives voted to kill a resolution to pursue impeachment against President Trump. The vote followed a resolution to condemn Trump following his tweets that enraged the left. The House got to vote on impeachment and this time 95 members all voted against killing the resolution, all 95 members in this 322-95 vote were Democrats. Not among them was Justin Amash who actually called for impeachment back in May in a 13 tweet thread.

“In fact, there were many crimes revealed by the investigation, some of which were charged, and some of which were not but are nonetheless described in Mueller’s report.” Justin Amash May 20th

If you recall these tweet came weeks before he decided to name a single of the several instances of impeachable activity, instead reverting to vague tweets about the nature of impeachment. Yet since May 18th, it has become increasingly obvious Justin Amash has no intentions on following through on his calls to impeachment. As a Representative in the US Congress, he has the power only 435 people in the country have. If he feels that it is his duty to pursue impeachment, which is a view he pontificated on Twitter, then anything short of bringing forward impeachment on the specific charges he eventually laid out is grandstanding. With so few Congressmen having read the Mueller Report, his words, Democrats would defer to him on this issue if he would only do what he said he would do. But Justin Amash was only grandstanding on impeachment. Otherwise why would he have voted to kill a resolution on pursuing impeachment, the very thing he called for?

What has Justin Amash done since May 18th?

He voted for a resolution condemning Trump, but the real answer is, he’s taken some time to brand himself. After support in his own district plummeted, on July 4th, he declared his independence from the Republican Party in an op ed in the Washington Post. Seeing as Independence Day is about America’s history not a day for politicians to politicize for their own endgame, this is perhaps the most egotistical way do just that. Maybe doing it on 9/11 is worse. As he all but comes out of the closet on a 2020 Libertarian or Independent Presidential Run, Justin Amash looks to rebrand Libertarianism, removing the populism Rand Paul embraced. Daniel McCarthy at Spectator wrote a really good piece on Amash illustrating this point.

What Ron Paul did was to counteract neoconservatism in the Republican party with libertarianism and populism. Populism proved to be more potent, but libertarianism itself contributed important elements to populism, including an articulate anti-interventionist foreign policy and a sense of class warfare as about power, not just wealth. Amash was never comfortable with populism, but libertarianism without it has no market at all. The Washington Post and the NeverTrump neocons share Amash’s animosity toward Trump and the populist right, but they share even fewer of his professed principles than Trump does. Ron Paul won despite losing; Amash teaches libertarians simply how to lose by losing.

In not even fighting for the very thing he parted from the Republicans over, Trump, he has already lost. His district has likely turned on him and his best political prospect is being a below average 3rd party candidate. All he’s left with politically are his principles which his grandstanding calls into question.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Conservatism

Dr Wen was pushed out of Planned Parenthood because she’s not a wartime leader

Published

on

Dr Wen was pushed out of Planned Parenthood because shes not a wartime leader

Some leaders are meant to bring people together. Others are made to get from one point in an organization’s development to the next stage. On occasion, an organization needs to go to war, and that’s what Planned Parenthood believes it needs to do right now. Their former president, Dr. Leana Wen, believes she is a combination of the first two types of leader – bringing people together and transitioning Planned Parenthood. She believes this is why she was pushed out the door by the board.

They want to go to war and Wen is not a wartime leader.

This may sound like a bad thing for pro-life organizations as their top nemesis is clearly positioning to be more of a political organization willing to play dirty and force the issue of abortion on as many people as possible. But an astute examination of the way things are today reveals one truth: America is polarized, so it’s better to go to fight ideology versus ideology rather than attack an organization trying to build bridges.

It may have been difficult for Wen to truly coax moderate pro-lifers, liberty-minded ant-government folks, and people on the fence on the abortion issue, but she was laying the groundwork for such things. This is why I’m glad to see her go. I know the threat of a proper radical progressive who hates pro-lifers to the core is worrisome to some, including our top pro-life writer. But the writing is on the wall: war is on. Planned Parenthood is looking for a battle-hardened fighter to shame people in Alabama, scare people in Georgia, and celebrate progressives in New York. They want someone who will push the feminine healthcare aspect of Planned Parenthood to the backburner and focus solely on advancing pro-abortion laws and planting more abortion clinics around the country.

We’re not just fighting for the lives of preborn babies, though that is plenty of incentive to fight. But we’re also fighting for the soul of the nation. For the pro-life, conservative, and Judeo-Christian worldviews to regain prominence in America, it’s important that we stake our claim to unambiguous differences between our beliefs and their’s. Some will tell me we need more unity, but the only unity that’s possible in today’s polarized society is if the left gets their way and enough on the right accept it. The left will not accept our perspectives. Therefore, we must force the issue. We must get into an ideological war. Most importantly, we need to put our truths up against their best lies.

The best lies they tell are that abortion is a right, pre-born babies aren’t people, and killing the “lump of cells” in the mother is somehow considered healthcare.

In an article posted today by the NY Times, Wen explains why she was ousted and gives hints about the direction Planned Parenthood wants to go without her:

With high-quality, affordable health care out of reach for so many, Planned Parenthood has a duty to maximize its reach. I began efforts to increase care for women before, during and after pregnancies, and to enhance critically-needed services like mental health and addiction treatment.

But the team that I brought in, experts in public health and health policy, faced daily internal opposition from those who saw my goalsas mission creep. There was even more criticism as we worked to change the perception that Planned Parenthood was just a progressive political entity to show that it was first and foremost a mainstream health care organization.

Perhaps the greatest area of tension was over our work to be inclusive of those with nuanced views about abortion. I reached out to people who wrestle with abortion’s moral complexities, but who will speak out against government interference in personal medical decisions. I engaged those who identify as being pro-life, but who support safe, legal abortion access because they don’t want women to die from back-alley abortions. I even worked with people who oppose abortion but support Planned Parenthood because of the preventive services we provide — we share the desire to reduce the need for abortion through sex education and birth control.

The Planned Parenthood of the near future is one that doesn’t worry about reproductive health or the safety of babies. They simply want more abortions. There’s an evil at the heart of the organization that is actually darker than we’ve seen in the past, if that can be imagined. We need to fight this darkness, and Wen was in the way trying to make Planned Parenthood inclusive and acceptable. That went against their new goal. They want the issue forced.

Our truths are able to shine brightest when the opposition is at its darkest. A kindler, gentler, inclusive agenda isn’t as dark as Planned Parenthood’s desired goal of advancing as many abortions as possible. I’m glad to see Wen removed.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Conservatism

Beauty queen Kathy Zhu was robbed because she’s a conservative

Published

on

Beauty queen Kathy Zhu was robbed because shes a conservative

It’s okay to be “woke” if you’re participating in Miss World America. Several contestants have expressed radical political, cultural, and religious views that would be considered offensive to many conservatives, including support for dismemberment of preborn children, anti-law-enforcement sentiments, and one instance of clear racism against Caucasians. But it was the outspoken conservative beauty queen, Kathy Zhu, who was stripped of her title and forced to disassociate herself from the competition immediately.

She posted her conversation with Miss World America Michigan state director Laurie DeJack as well as the email correspondence with the organization regarding her ousting:

Some news outlets are reporting the ousting had to do with her controversial response to being asked to “try a hijab” in 2018, but the text messages do not reflect that. It could have been cited during a phone conversation, which apparently happened in the midst of the text conversation.

But the directly attributed reason was a Tweet in which Zhu addressed an unknown person or group who was apparently complaining about African-American deaths. In response, she noted that black-on-black violence is the most prevalent circumstance in African-American homicides.

She worded it a bit differently:

“Did you know the majority of black deaths are caused by other blacks? Fix problems within your own community first before blaming others.”

Zhu quote-Tweeted a post sent to Vice President Pence:

Yes, her post was controversial. Was it racist? No, not in context. As she noted in her letter to the pageant, she was referring to statistical facts. Is that grounds for removal? Perhaps it is… as long as they’re being consistent. But Zhu isn’t the only contestant posting very controversial statements on social media. As of now, there seems to be no others who have indicated they were removed for similar reasons even though some have social media posts that should be considered even worse relative to the rules of decorum set forth by the pageant. Of course, the posts that should be considered worse than Zhu’s are generally progressive.

It’s a shame that Zhu had her title and future participation banned, but she has an opportunity to highlight the anti-conservative bias in such organizations. She may not be competing, but she can be even more influential now within the conservative movement than she was before. She’s currently studying political science. Maybe that will translate into a life in politics.

If Miss World America were fair, they’d strip crowns from several of the contestants over their controversial social media posts. But they won’t. They located the lone controversial conservative in the group. They’ll only remove MAGA deplorable Kathy Zhu.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending