A Journal of America's Political Soul Heaven & Earth: Where Politics and Spirituality Meet
April 16, 2024  
Home Receive G&G for free... SPROUTS - Reader comments, discussion, and feedback... Contribute your writings to G&G future issues... More information on the current topic... Previous topics covered... Why Garlic? Why Grass? Why now? Contact G&G...

Issue No. 5 - The Political Spectrum in America
C O N T E N T S :

New » What Makes a Candidate 'Electable'?

Introduction: The Lay of the Land

The Psychology of Conservatism

Left, Right or Center: Who's Conservative Today?

A Lone Voice of Principle Broadens the Debate: G&G Interviews Matt Gonzalez

Signs of Life on the Left

Keeping the Flame Alive: Greens Anchor the Spectrum

Over the Rainbow: Libertarians Offer a Different Spectrum

Taking Back America, From the Radical Middle

Somewhere Over the Rainbow: Libertarians Offer a Different Spectrum

As is true for most subjects, treating politics as one-dimensional is extremely limiting. Better than a left-right spectrum is the two-dimensional conceptual map of the political landscape called the Nolan chart. David Nolan devised this chart while a political science student at MIT in the late 1960s.

Nolan identified two primary political axes: personal freedom and economic freedom. Personal freedom issues have to do with how you live your life: what substances you consume, with whom you copulate, what messages you communicate. Economic freedom issues have to do with your income and expenses: how you earn your living, how much tax you pay, to whom you give your money.

Liberals typically advocate strong personal freedom, but limited economic freedom; they believe that government should manipulate the economy to achieve social goals such as equitable income.

Conservatives usually talk about a free economy, but want to outlaw acts they consider immoral, limiting personal freedom.

The strengths of the Nolan chart, at right, come out when moving beyond liberal and conservative. Totalitarians of all stripes, whether communist, fascist, or religious, want to control both economic and personal activities. Meanwhile, libertarians advocate personal and economic freedom.

Trying to place these latter two groups on a spectrum is difficult. Religious fundamentalists like the Taliban would usually be placed on the right, but they want as much control over the economy as a far-left communist. And nearly every successful socialist revolution has advocated a moral program as well as an economic one; recall that there were officially no homosexuals and no drug use in the Soviet Union.

And where do you put libertarians on the spectrum? Placing them out on the right, as the spectrum does, cannot be right. Advocating drug legalization and equal rights for homosexuals would make libertarians unpopular right wing neighbors indeed. And pushing for a right to bear arms in self-defense and seeking a final end to taxation make libertarians anathema to the left.

Politics are truly more complicated than any two, seven, or ten dimensions could represent. But the two-dimensional Nolan chart provides a more useful map for political discussion then a simple spectrum.

You can find out where you fall on the Nolan chart by taking the World's Smallest Political Quiz from the Advocates for Self-Government.

The Libertarian Apex

A few years after creating the chart, David Nolan co-founded the Libertarian Party. His bias is reflected in the usual presentation of the chart with the libertarians at the top, though that also has the advantage of presenting the traditional left and right views on the left and right.

Many libertarians say that the consistency of libertarian positions attracted them; the chart also reflects this. A consistently pro-freedom approach, regardless of the issue, leads to high personal and economic freedom scores.

In addition, libertarians recognize that personal and economic freedoms are necessarily intertwined. For example, you don't really have the right to consume whatever chemicals you want if you aren't free to buy them, or if a government dispensary has to decide which to stock in what quantities. Conversely, you don't truly have freedom over your income if there are certain things you are forbidden to buy.

Also consider marriage. Under any income tax system, marriage will either incur benefits or penalties because of how household finances work. The tax system will either make some people more likely to marry who wouldn't otherwise, or it will discourage some couples from taking the plunge for financial reasons.

You don't truly have freedom of religion when a government body decides which houses of worship's contributions are tax-deductible and which aren't. You don't have freedom over your paycheck when you can be forced to fund social programs, and you don't have freedom of speech when you are forced to support art projects you find offensive.

For these pragmatic reasons, as well as for the underlying principles, libertarians believe that freedom can't be had piecemeal.

Choice and Competition

Government is defined by its use of coercive force. A taxation system without guns behind it is just another voluntarily-funded charity competing for donations.

But since the government can compel your contribution to its coffers, it has no pressure to compete, to behave efficiently, or to spend your money well. Progressives who have been funding the War on Terrorism and the War on Drugs against their will are in the same boat with religious conservatives funding blasphemous works of art.

Even the programs you want to fund are unlikely to be run efficiently. If you give to a private charity that spends your money badly, you are unlikely to donate again. The managers of the charity will find themselves unemployed; this is pressure to which they are likely to respond. Governmental programs are under no such pressure; only in cases of egregious mismanagement are any corrective steps taken, and those steps usually consist of a blue-ribbon investigative panel and a new manager managing the same program. Witness the investigations of NASA after the Challenger and Columbia disasters, for example.

Instead, consider the choices you make when you decide to donate to the United Way or the Red Cross, Catholic Charities or Oxfam. You look for a program that matches your values and that you feel will spend your money well.

The United Way is a huge charity with a considerable bureaucracy. Every few years, it's revealed that their overhead has gotten too high, and donations threaten to dry up. They react by restructuring and reducing overhead (which then builds up slowly again over the next few years).

The Red Cross routinely puts half of earmarked donations into its general fund. After the September 11, 2001 attacks, donors to the special relief fund were outraged to find that happening to their money. The Red Cross responded by changing its policy for that fund, and putting all of the donations towards relief efforts.

When was the last time a government agency reacted so strongly or quickly to public outcry? One reason they can't is because everything they do is governed by a law. In order to change how they behave, they have to change a law or a regulation, which requires a comment period, debate, political maneuvering (in public or in back rooms), and possibly a vote. They simply can't react as fast as private organizations.

Worse, you have little say over what programs you fund. If five to ten percent of the population wants a program badly enough, it will get created and funded, because most of the rest of the population won't care enough to oppose it. With a coercive funding structure in place, the people who want a new program, whether it's scholarships for inner-city children or funding for paramilitary troops in Colombia, don't have to put their money where their mouth is. They can put your money there instead. Privately-funded programs have to earn every cent they get.

Libertarians believe that the only way to a healthy, productive, and free society is to build it privately. Giving the government the power to create a mass transit system, for example, is giving the government the power to destroy the mass transit system. Giving Clinton the power to structure a national healthcare plan is giving Bush the power to destructure a national healthcare plan. Giving the EPA authority to regulate pollution is giving the EPA authority to declare that carbon dioxide isn't pollution.

Progressives and libertarians have very similar views of where society should be, in the long term. Libertarians understand that government is the enemy of progress towards that society. Let's build that society ourselves, without forcing anyone to help. In the long run, a society built on coercion cannot stand.

Chris Maden is Chair of the Libertarian Party of San Francisco and a candidate for California State Assembly, 12th District.

comment on this article >
back to top ^

Latest at G&G
03.13 - I have very extensively researched the Twin Tower Collapses
more >
03.06 - Your article makes a hell of a lot of sense, I must say.
more >

Green Party
Democratic Party
Republican Party
Libertarian Party

IPS International

New York Times
Washington Post
   other US dailies

Common Dreams
Democracy Now
Labor Start
Mother Jones
The Nation
Tom Paine.com
The Progressive
Truth Out

9-11 Blogger


Front Page | Contact | Subscribe
most content © 2024 garlic & grass
some fair use content