The Spherical Method of Understanding Political Philosophy

Rightwing, Leftwing, moderate, liberal, conservative, socialist, libertarian, communist--what do they all mean?

In politics many terms are thrown around as if the electorate has a common grasp of the terminology. My hunch is that the majority of American citizens do not have an adequate grasp of political theory so as to understand the pundits and talking heads on CNN, CBS, ABC, and NBC.

And who can blame them?

The terminology is confusing, and many of those who use the terminology to report political news are just as confused about the meaning of terms as everyone else.

So, as a feeble attempt to address the issue, the following is a brief primer on political theory and terminology. This is by no means an exhaustive explanation but a brief overview of the political arena so as to contribute to a greater understanding of the subject among the citizens.

Most of the time the assumption is made that politics can be understood in linear terms, moving from left to right, or right to left. The far left is considered 'liberal,' or 'socialist,' or even 'communist,' whereas the far right is considered 'conservative,' 'fascist,' or 'totalitarian,' each separated by varying degrees along the continuum. Looking straight-on at the line or the continuum, dead-center, one will find the 'moderate' or 'middle of the road' position, assuming that there is an equal distance from the middle to the leftwing and from the middle to the rightwing.

This is the commonly accepted way of describing political philosophy.

I maintain that this understanding is severely flawed and limited. And here is why.

If one goes far enough to the left on the linear continuum one lands at the communist ideology. If one goes far enough to the right one lands at the totalitarian ideology, which would include the Nazi form of fascism. In practice neither philosophy exhibits any differentiation. Both advocate and mandate centralized government control over individuals and their choices, as well as the means of production, i.e., industry and business. The only difference between the two is who is running the show. Fascism presumes one dictator at the top, while communism, if it is to work, depends on a ruling class at the top, which, in practice, dictates economic policy, the means of productivity, and ways in which individual citizens are required to carry out the policies set by the ruling class.
Thus, the ruling class in communist society assumes the role of the dictator, meaning that in actual practice, there is absolutely no difference between fascism and communism. Both depend on either one person or a group of persons at the top to whom all citizens are subservient.

For this reason, my conclusion is that political theory is best understood as spherical in nature. If you look at the globe of the planet earth as compared to a map of the earth on a wall, you will see what I mean. A linear map by its very nature stops at one end on the far west, and on the other end at the far east. This is not a true rendering of the nature of earth, however. The globe tells the true story. In other words, if you travel far enough west, you end up in the east. Travel far enough east, and you end up in the west.

Thus, in politics, the far enough left you move the more like the right you become. Move far enough toward the rightwing, and the more like the leftwing you become. In fact, go far enough in either direction, and you will be exactly like the very ones you thought to be your political opposite.

A fascist who goes to the extreme in fascism will be exactly like his communist counterparts who move to the extremes of communism. There is absolutely no difference in practice, for in either system the government has the control. Government is seen as the ultimate solution to all human problems.

Within this sphere, however, there is a sector that can be referred to as the liberty zone. Those who adhere to this philosophical point of view do not trust government authority to solve all of mankind's problems. In fact, there is a decided distrust of government authority in this sphere of liberty. As Jefferson said, 'That government that is big enough to do everything for you is big enough to take everything you have away from you.'

To these stalwarts of individual, personal liberty and free markets and a free economy, government was never the solution to anything. Government IS the problem. The best thing that government can do is to provide a fair, equal playing field for free people in a free economy to operate, plus, provide for a national defense.

I will post more on this later. But, as you can see, there are times when the terms leftwing and rightwing are terribly misleading. Head far enough in either direction and they wind up looking and sounding eerily alike.