Wikipedia has an interesting article on the so-called political compass, which is an attempt to get away from the one-dimensional Right - Left duality. I think this is an admirable attempt to add more subtlety and sophistication to political discourse. However, I also believe it is somewhat flawed in that it regards one of the dimensions as a social dimension and measures attitudes along this dimension in terms of how much one favors or opposes authority -- all kinds of authority without discrimination.
I think this is a bad idea because it tries to politicize things that are not political. For example, religious authority, while having a role to play in society and tending to influence politics considerably, is most certainly not the same as political authority, i.e, authority of the state. Similarly, religious authority has something to say about the other dimension of the compass, the economic dimension, but that does not mean that religious authority is the same thing as economic authority!
Also, these two axes, the economic and the authority axes, do not seem to be quite independent. For example, distrust of all authority would of course mean include distrust of the state as an economic authority. Thus the term left-wing libertarian seems like an oxymoron. The left tends to favor strong political authority that is also very much authoritatively involved in economics. The extreme example is that of the authoritarian Communist and Nazi regimes who influenced nearly every aspect of economic life (not to mention nearly every aspect of life period, including the abolish of and / or strong suppression of all religious authority).
The political compass seems to be a somewhat muddled attempt to illuminate political discourse that falls way short of its intents.
I think this is a bad idea because it tries to politicize things that are not political. For example, religious authority, while having a role to play in society and tending to influence politics considerably, is most certainly not the same as political authority, i.e, authority of the state. Similarly, religious authority has something to say about the other dimension of the compass, the economic dimension, but that does not mean that religious authority is the same thing as economic authority!
Also, these two axes, the economic and the authority axes, do not seem to be quite independent. For example, distrust of all authority would of course mean include distrust of the state as an economic authority. Thus the term left-wing libertarian seems like an oxymoron. The left tends to favor strong political authority that is also very much authoritatively involved in economics. The extreme example is that of the authoritarian Communist and Nazi regimes who influenced nearly every aspect of economic life (not to mention nearly every aspect of life period, including the abolish of and / or strong suppression of all religious authority).
The political compass seems to be a somewhat muddled attempt to illuminate political discourse that falls way short of its intents.
The Social dimension on the political compass measures one's favor toward gov't authority in social issues specifically, not in authority generally.
ReplyDeleteThe Economic dimension measures one's favor toward gov't authority in economic issues specifically.
I don't know quite what you mean by "Religious Authority", but a secular gov't shouldn't pay any attention to religious issues.
The article on Wikipedia that I cited doesn't distinguish between different kinds of authority. Therefore, I assume that all kinds of authority that claim to have or actually do have a bearing on social behavior and social cohesiveness are relevant. Since, the main topic is a political one, however, it may also be assumed that the main kind of authority concerned is political, i.e. governmental. Regardless of the nature of authority, the purpose of such authority is to cultivate proper attitudes toward social morality. It is considered wrong, for example, by both governmental and religious authorities, for one citizen to take the life of another except for reasons of self-defense. Society cannot function well if its citizens live in fear. They have to know that they are safe because killers are deterred from killing. Murder is not only injurious to the individual killed but also to society at large. Both authorities provide for sanctions, i.e., punishments, in response to such acts against society. The state threatens with capital punishment or life in prison, and the Church threatens with eternal damnation if the sin is not repented of.
DeleteAs much as we'd like to separate church and state there are many areas of social morality where their concerns are joined. Indeed many have argued that the ten commandments are the moral underpinnings of our whole legal system. So, whether it likes it or not, governmental authority does indeed pay attention to moral issues which are also religious issues. Without an underlying moral code ("stealing is wrong", e.g.) the state has no business enforcing laws against stealing, murder, etc. It does so because such acts are injurious to individuals and society. Otherwise, you have embrace the Nietschean truism that if God is dead everything is possible, i.e., all kinds of immoral are legally justifiable. You just have to rewrite your legal code like the Nazis did, thanks, in part, to Nietsche's and Shopenhauer's help. We are well on our way to doing the same thing in America. The Obama administration has decided that it will use it HHS mandate to define what constitutes a religious institution and what does not. It says a Church building and employees who work or worship are part of the religious exemption but Church-run schools and hospitals are not. One bishop recently said, "I will die in my bed. My successor will die in prison and his successor will die in the public square."
Nonetheless, it is my impression that libertarians mistrust all authority, not just governmental authority. They tend toward that Ayn Randian sort of rugged individualism. I may be mistaken in this impression, but I would welcome to corrected on this matter.
Thanks for your post, Jim!