Conservatives: Civilization vs. Barbarism Libertarians: Freedom vs. Coercion Progressives: Oppressors vs. the Oppressed
His thesis was that polarization has been increasing because there is often no natural policy alignment across these axes, even while many would probably agree on some fundamental Western tenets of rights and justice.
There is policy alignment historically. We can look to how the Nordic countries or Mass and then America dealt with health care in modern times.
The right was cool with Mass “universal healthcare”. Liberals were not. Then when Obama did what Romney did in Mass, it suddenly became a liberal viewpoint and the Overton window moved to the right.
This has issues with “no natural policy alignment” imo.
- https://www.econtalk.org/kling-on-the-three-languages-of-pol...
- https://www.econtalk.org/arnold-kling-on-the-three-languages...
The topic is missing 1/3 to 1/2 of the Overton window and regularly conflates a made up “left” that doesn’t exist. Of course the left exists. Liberals are not the left.
I searched a few basic topics and many results [and comments] lacked awareness of socioeconomic knowledge. Sometimes defiantly so.
Meanwhile when I go and look at the [far] left, they are likely to be honest with their good faith intentions of agitation and propaganda.
Thanks for the links.
Edit: the problem isnt leaving out the left. The problem is leaving out the importance of the left and how “progressives” can’t be used alongside conservative and libertarian. It would be similar to giving a thesis on basketball with a “3 position” stance. Small forward (progressive), guard, guard (the other two). Crude example but this sort of sports book would be utterly trashed for being anti-intellectual and pedantic.
I agree with personal issues. What is the difference between societal and politic issues?
This topic is liberals founding a media company and one of them already being a controversial liberal who was scratched revealed and went mask off as a fascist. A cliche.
Good job at finding a framework with your Qs! An issue is they are vague. I tried answering your questions and they don’t answer what my politics or principles are.
I wonder if the perfect combo is to include policy questions along w/ some steel-manning. The current questions don’t take the Overton window in consideration. Anecdotal, I have yet to see someone’s [future] politics without hearing their policy ideas.
> A person can shift around "on the issues", viewed purely as left-right, while still remaining true to themself on these dispositional axes.
I’m still curious to what end any of this? What is it showing for people in general? Personally I would gain nothing about knowing someone’s principles or politics from those questions.
Finally the one thing that is entirely left out is capitalism. What left right are we discussing? Where does believing in capitalism lie on this? Without being specific and steel manning, people of every political disposition will sometimes answer the questions the same.
- Is their focus on making things better, or on keeping things from getting worse?
- What is their regard for institutions and/or expertise?
- Are they attracted to, or turned off by, a framing that relies on scalar hyperbole: "the worst its ever been", etc.?
A person can shift around "on the issues", viewed purely as left-right, while still remaining true to themself on these dispositional axes.