The really real political spectrum (part 2)

In my previous article I tried to expand the traditional left-right political spectrum, at least when it comes to societal issues, based on the observations of political activity and party platforms. The result was the “progress-liberty-tradition” triangle, formed by the “reason-stability-conformity” lines:

This model does seem to fit the observations, but also leaves much to be desired in terms of clarity and versatility, with some of lingering questions, like what exactly is “reason” or “conformity” in this context? Do liberals and libertarians really converge in a point? Are progressives necessarily conformists? Doesn’t feel like it. But the biggest problem is the triangle itself, because its three “axes” aren’t perpendicular to each other, which means they are not independent and thus don’t represent fundamental values.

It would take too long to describe the literally insane quest of finding the real (or at least more) fundamental values, so I’ll just give the end result — all societal politics basically comes down to one question: who gets to make the rules that govern a society (in social terms)?

Interestingly, there are only 3 meaningful answers to this question:

a). People: Humans are generally smart and reasonable enough to design a working human society and set the rules for themselves.

b). Identity: Humans are different, each is born with certain predefined characteristics, like gender or ethnicity. Each identity has its own place within a society, and a set of associated rules. For example, women should wear certain types of clothes, have certain hair styles, work at certain jobs (if at all), etc.

c). Authority: All members of society should conform to the same set of rules as defined by some universally accepted central authority, regardless of who or what this authority is.

To be clear, the people, identities, and authority are not mutually exclusive in any way, so societal rules can be defined by any combination of those 3 parties. This, of course, creates 8 possible combinations, as follows:

1. Authority only: Everyone must follow certain rules to ensure a uniform cohesive society. But wait, if neither humans nor Nature can set rules, then who can? Logic dictates that in this case the authority must be both superhuman and supernatural, such as a deity or its representatives (prophets, messiahs, incarnations, etc.) The more rational candidates are some rare, exceptional humans, who, through some special set of circumstances and abilities, can come up with new rules that hold true for a very long time, thereby proving their validity. Otherwise, the rules should change as little as possible, if at all. Political ideology: Conservative/traditionalist.
2. Identity only: Everyone must behave according to their group/tribal/sectional affiliation. Rules for each group cannot easily change (certainly not by ordinary humans), but no universal rules are required (or even possible). This means that groups must be segregated in some way (physical, geographical, cultural), each group within the society just keeping its predefined place and living by its own rules. Political ideology: Sectarian (adversary groups) or communitarian (isolationist groups).
3. People only: Society is (mostly) a human invention, so only humans can and should determine how it works. This means that humans are free to do what they please, as long as the society holds together. There is no need for universal rules, though, as long as every member of society is just being considerate of others and behaves in a socially responsible manner. This assumes that most humans are reasonable enough to know what’s considerate and responsible and what’s not. Those, who don’t know, can be educated by others via peer pressure, public ostracizing, shaming, etc. Political ideology: Collectivist or left libertarian.
4. Authority + identity: Everyone must behave according to their immutable identity, yet there is also a set of universal rules that bind all groups into an ordered, cohesive society. But if all identities are different, then how can there be common rules, let alone universally accepted ones? The most logical solution is for one group (e.g. white Christian men, the Brahmin caste, etc.) to achieve domination and force their own rules upon all the other groups. This does create an ordered, cohesive society, which must be hierarchical in nature, with some groups above others. Political ideology: Hierarchist or Supremacist.
5. People + identity: Humans do indeed have different identities and identity has great cultural importance, but the rules associated with those identities are, in turn, largely human inventions, so they can be freely modified and reinterpreted by humans. Humans can also switch their identities in some cases (from religious affiliation to gender), if they so wish. In any case, all identities are equally important and honorable, and no one should be discriminated based on their identity. Political ideology: Progressive
6. People + authority: Identities are irrelevant. All that matters is the societal cohesion and for that we need universal rules to which everyone must conform regardless of their identities (which are, again, irrelevant). But since humans are free to set the rules, then the logical solution is for all individual members to sit down and to form a collective consensus on how the society should operate. This is similar to left libertarianism, but the societal rules are enforced centrally (top-down rather than bottom-up/grassroots) and cannot be easily modified, certainly not by single individuals. Political ideology: Moderate or conformal liberal.
7. People + identity + authority: All the above ideologies have a point (to a degree) and all parties should come together and jointly determine the common rules. Kind of like the liberal idea (#6), but with identities taken into account, in fact the universal rules are determined between groups rather than individuals. If all groups happen to agree that one group has the best idea on how to make society stable, then universal rules may be based on that group’s values, why not. It’s kind of like supremacism, but a voluntary one, based on consensus, so it’s okay. Political ideology: Conformist or Accommodationist (or something like that)
8. No one: Humans aren’t smart enough to design a stable society, tradition is pointless because it was created by humans too, and identities are stupid and meaningless. But if no one can set the rules then how can the society function? Answer: it can’t. Societies are unstable artificial constructs designed by humans to try to control other humans (mostly unsuccessfully). Humans are self-sufficient by nature and neither need societies nor benefit from them. Ideally, we should free ourselves from the very idea of “society” and restore the natural order of things. Political ideology: Individualist or right libertarian.

It is possible to prove mathematically that the 3 parties (people, identity, and authority) are mutually independent, and thus generate a Cartesian 3D system of coordinates (the proof itself is too long for this article, though). Therefore, we can represent all 8 political positions as a cube:

But what about the triangle, which started this story? Was it too simplistic or outright wrong? Not at all, in fact here it is again:

Now things are becoming much clearer. What I defined as “conformity line” is actually submission to authority, represented by the rear side of the cube, and “reason” is simply the belief that humans have the mental capacity to define the rules, represented by the left side of the cube. The point I defined as “liberty” is actually a combination of left and right libertarians, who tolerate others, either by ignoring the differences or by staying far enough apart so as not to feel the differences (respectively). Conservatives and supremacists blended into traditionalists simply because in many societies (particularly Christian) supremacism is still kind of a status quo.

The triangle is still a relevant 2D approximation of this more precise 3D model, because it still creates a reasonably balanced representation, where each corner of the triangle covers two sides of the cube. But perhaps an 8-party (cube-based) political system can provide the same benefits as the 3-party one (triangle-based). For example, regarding the idea of same-sex marriage, supremacists and conservatives definitely oppose it (because it’s abhorrent and against the established norms, respectively), left libertarians and progressives support it (because of personal freedom and group empowerment, respectively), while the rest aren’t sure, but, under proper conditions, can get on board: right libertarians and sectarians don’t really care what others do, and can support the idea as long as it doesn’t affect them, and conformists gladly follow what is now a clear majority. Assuming that all 8 ideologies have comparable public support (which might well be the case), we should get a 3/4 majority in favor of same-sex marriage. But the follow-up issue of forcing a homophobic baker to make a cake for a gay wedding, would get a different picture, because it violates the sectarian and right libertarian condition for joining the previous “coalition”. Even left libertarians would weigh baker’s freedom versus the needs of society in favor of the baker, who, in their view, is not a threat to society in this case (and can be dealt with in other ways like a boycott). Thus we now get at least 5/3 majority in favor of the baker. And so on.

Well, I suppose that’s enough for now. In the next article we will see how the same “cubic” model can be adapted to other, non-societal issues, like the economy, political power, and more.