Post 40 -- Depth and robustness for those who want it

It is common for political junkies to boast of their political wing's identify while using the opposing factions' terms as a detraction. A left-minded individual will proudly claim himself as a "liberal", followed by the smug besmirchment of the right as "conservative". It is simple language used with the intention of pandering to a political base. A group of college kids will be happy to hear of a liberal decrying a conservative over some social policy, yet will ignore the conservative even when the discussion comes around to national security and reducing military spending. This wholesale rejection of the "conservative" tag by youth is an expected one; the rebellious nature of the next generation against their parents' more conservative views, even if those parents are veteran gender activists from San Francisco.

Linguistically speaking, it is an effective tactic--having language that pits two sides against one and other, creating the literal us versus them scenario on every policy works to meet the needs of the populous. It should be obvious to most that there is an expectation for citizens to vote in the democratic elections, a vital right that is needed to support a democracy. As such, being, to some degree, myopic primates, most of us want to have some understanding of the issues du jour. Now, most of us are not political analysts who have the luxury of earning a full-time wage tracking political opinion and reading through long, complex legal proceedings and bill amendment proposals.

The political machines of major parties understand this and are glad to do the work for us now: if you're a liberal, you can rely on liberal sites to feed you liberal slanted news which will educate you in a liberal manner on topics from a liberal perspective. This liberal crash course on a given issue will also be keen to point out how conservative policy, values, or individuals are failing to address or meet the needs of your liberal identity. The Huffington Post comes to mind for me. If you're a feminist, then The Mary Sue would be your rag of choice to understand how feminism is acting and solving problems while illustrating how conservatives are hindering, harming, and haranguing feminist efforts.

This approach is very two dimensional; a linear view of how issues can be understood, placing all issues against a spectrum of liberal to conservative. The best attempts made at adding depth to the layman is frequently provided by major news outlets (again, see The Huffington Post), where you are still stuck on the linear track, but now on an incline. So deviously designed, of course, that as you move along your x axis towards conservative, your y value increases. What is the y value in this case? None other than the value of authoritarianism! The crude construct prevents those who identify with the liberal left from ever seeing themselves as authoritarian, a simple fact that does not survive the slightest scrutiny. For example, workplace quotas which demand a minimum number of women to serve in high ranking positions, as we've seen proposed by the very liberal Sheryl Sandberg.

The conservative angle on this is not dissimilar: backsliding towards filthy liberalism will mean you are giving up your freedom and sense of individuality. A serious review of this point will again bear too many examples, but the most obvious one is that of abortion rights for women, the moral degeneration which (somehow) harms other Americans' ability to not have to live in a country where such a heinous act is allowed.

This simplistic work up is effective for getting people on board with issues and with further solidifying the support of those who want to sound current on social and political issues but cannot be bothered to do the work themselves. Identifying as a Democrat is an easy move for voting, giving one a simple answer on the vote-test. Yet, when challenged on core Democratic platform issues (e.g., budgetary discretion, military spending, "equality" policies), individuals suddenly become a lot more a la carte towards the Dem's vast meal plan.

A better system for those of us who either have the time or the mental capacity to deal with major issues beyond the blerbs heard on NPR on the brief run to the store for another carton of organic, free range, grass-fed bullshit, is one which liberates the y axis from the x and kills the linear political spectrum. Let's begin by keeping the left-right x axis. Now add the vertical y axis. At the top of the y axis is true authoritarianism, that of Stalin, Kim Jong Il, and centuries of rule from the pulpit. At the bottom of the y axis is true libertarian, which is far more akin to Satanism or anarchism. A person who lands dead center would be a party Democrat--equal parts left and right, authoritarian and libertarian. A part Republican will land further right, but still the same value of authoritarian and libertarian as the Democrat.

The left has its own authoritarianism, where social woes of minorities or women can be resolved by strong arm government tactics to impose equality of outcomes--while utterly ignoring the presense of equal opportunity. Just as the right can be highly libertarian, purposing fiscal needs are met by those who can pay for what they want (e.g., all roads are toll roads; build your own parks if you want one in your community); there are no barriers imposed by the government and the onus is shifted onto individuals.

By adding the north-south dimension to issues, it becomes evidently clear the value of many policy choices and core platform ideas. Proposing to end the "gender pay gap", the falsely claimed women earning 77 cents on every dollar a man earns for the same work, may seem like a positive move, but it would land rather high on the authoritarian ranking, even as a left-based policy. As such, it would inherently harm groups which are not the focus of the policy. Taking into account how open a policy is does add to its value--it also adds understanding on why the opposing side might be justified in its opposition.

A tangential benefit of entering into the three dimensional realm of political understanding comes in the form of rejecting the simplistic us versus them fans. Those people who willfully flatten all arguments down into the linear realm are lost in the three dimensional space of robust policy debate. Outrage culture relies on the misunderstanding of policy to rally bases around support or opposition.

I will leave this brief piece with a the best example of the simplicity of the linear system compared to the robustness of the third dimension with a recent court ruling: federally accepted marriage equality for homosexual couples. The most prominent and justified concern from the dissent focuses on  the arguments used to win the decision: how are those points used in favour of supporting gay-marriage any different from that of polygamy/polyandry?

Enjoy.

This has been an unedited rant. @nrokchi