They might all make appeals to Care, but those might be focused more on Loyalty to the tribe than actual care for the individuals within it. Careful analysis would be required, I believe, of claims of Care. If Fairness is emphasized it is probably only Positive Fairness. If we “ran the numbers” on those ideologies the spectrum might look something like the following. The ideologies might be more spread out, not as bunched together, as I show them here, but I think they’d all be somewhere on on the right side of the spectrum:I
submit that this scale is capable of representing the whole story of
human political ideology. That is, every morality, community, society,
or governmental system – present, past, and future – will fall somewhere
on this scale.
THREE REASONS WHY THE CURRENT SPECTRUM FAILS
Reason One: It Tells Only Half The Story
I
submit that the currently accepted conventional wisdom of a political
spectrum which extends from liberalism on the left to conservatism on
the right tells just half the story of human morality and
politics. It fails to provide an accurate representation of what
happens in the real world.
I
submit that the current spectrum depicts only the “Individualizing”
half of the full spectrum, and in so doing it tilts all political
discussion heavily in favor of liberalism.
Haidt
says that it is difficult to talk directly about concepts. He says
it’s just not easy to use facts and figures and measurable quantities to
convey big ideas. The way we talk about big ideas is through metaphor.
Exhibit A in the pantheon of metaphors is The Rider and The Elephant.
Exhibit B in the pantheon of metaphors is the political spectrum.
The
metaphor of the political spectrum is the essential framework upon
which practically all political discussion rests. It is the fundamental
presumption, the implicit and unspoken “ground rules,” the “given,”
the box, the framework, that constrains and defines the limits and
extent of practially every discussion we have about morality and
politics.
And
it’s wrong. It leaves out half the story, and by implication it sends
the messag that anything having to do with the other half of the story
is outside the box of what is considered “normal” and “acceptable,” and
is therefore “extremist,” or is somehow not valid.
How
can we possibly expect to have reasonable and informed discussions
about politics, morality, and ideology if the central metaphor upon
which all of our discussions rest is wrong?
The
answer is, we can’t. And yet, here we are, in The Righteous Mind, on
the major network news stations, on the legitimate cable news stations,
on Comedy Central, and in countless newspapers and magazines, doing
exactly that.
Some
might argue that the current scale does not fail because it is indeed
capable of telling the whole story. The argument of that perspective
might be that ideologies of dictatorships, Fascism, Communism, and
Nazism are simply examples of extremist, far right, conservatism.
Well, even if that’s true (and it’s not) then modern conservatism still
belongs in the center and the conventional wisdom of the currently
accepted political spectrum with liberalism on the left and conservatism
on the right therefore is tells only half the story, and it’s therefore
still wrong.
Think
about it. Conservatism is in the middle of the political spectrum.
It’s not on the right. What that means is that the “center” of the
political spectrum in this country is actually at the 1/4 mark of the
full spectrum, well into the range of what might otherwise be considered
“liberal.”
But
that’s not the only reason the current spectrum is wrong. Another
reason is that it connects things that aren’t really connected.
https://theindependentwhig.com/2012/11/15/toward-a-more-accurate-political-spectrum/
