One of my favorite Dean's World denizens recently wrote to ask me why I don't blogroll Steven Den Beste, since I link so many others. That innocent inquiry raised a torrent of questions in my mind, as odd as that sounds. An article on my philosophy of blogrolling will probably be forthcoming as a result. I don't know why anyone would find that interesting, but something in me wants to write it.
Why do I mention that? Because after all that, not one but two Den Beste items crossed my path that I thought you all might find interesting:
First, Owen sent me this Den Beste article on the left-right political spectrum. It's pretty good, and raises subjects worth thinking about. It's a topic I've talked about before: how "left" and "right" increasingly have no meaning, and how self-described "liberals" and "conservatives" seem to be the opposite of their literal dictionary definitions these days.
Many have tried plotting political positions on two axes. For example, you may have seen the "World's Smallest Political Quiz" that the Libertarian Party likes to pass out, which plots people on two axes. They were hardly the first with such an idea, however. The first seems to have been Jerry Pournelle, who received one of his Ph.D.s for his work on the subject. I'm pleased to see that Den Beste updated his article to refer to it, because Pournelle's seldom given due credit.
I heartily agree that our political labels make no real sense. They may be inescapable, however, for two reasons: 1) the two-party system supports it, and the two-party system in America is probably inalterable, and 2) because no one's come up with anything else that's convenient and easy to refer to. I consciously try not to use "left" and "right" when discussing politics, and yet they still creep in, especially when I don't feel like writing two or three sentences just to explain what I mean.
Den Beste does have the distinction of being the first person I've seen to seriously attempt to plot more than two axes. Unfortunately, he doesn't develop the idea enough to give it any muscle. Someone looking for a Ph.D. thesis in Political Science might well use it for inspiration, but alas, it's just another failed attempt to change the dialectic. For now, anyway. I do commend him for the effort, and keep hoping someone will get us some better labels.
Having said all that, I find Pournelle's essay on a two-axis political chart particularly worth revisiting. Interestingly, even almost 20 years later, it still seems to chart our politics better than any other effort I've seen.
Regardless of relative success or failure, it sure would be nice to see things things like this discussed more often in High School and college classes on politics and history. Wouldn't it?
For whatever it's worth, I plot myself almost exactly in the center of Pournelle's chart--which is not something I claim to be an intellectually superior, morally correct, or hugely thoughtful position. It's just approximately where I land. Indeed, I'm somewhat startled to find myself there, because I think of my politics as being moderately radical and unorthodox.
---
In other Den Beste news, I noticed this short piece on moving monarchs over at Dr. Weevil's place. Weevil references a Den Beste correspondent from Australia who exhibits a surprising loyalty to the British Crown. The Ozzie in question suggested that even if the British dethroned the Queen, Australians and other former members of the Commonwealth might well keep her.
Weevil goes on to talk about historical cases where monarchs (and other rulers) have lost the original nations that spawned them, and yet remained soveriegn over other territories. It's not as unusual as it sounds. It also illustrates why a history geek like me I loves reading Dr. Weevil.
Actually, I'm pretty sure the Libertarian Party's version of the two-axis system is based on the "Nolan graph" devised in a 1971 article by advertising executive David F. Nolan -- 15 years before the publication of Pournelle's very similar idea. Hey, I even found a Web page saying so, which means it must be true!
Oops, I misread the book-publication date on that page about Pournelle as being the date that Pournelle published his political axes in the first place. Was his dissertation done before 1971?
Great... another wave of blogrolling philosophies and grumbles of delinking and reciprocation... ugh. :)
Yeah, Pournelle's dissertation was some time before the 1986 article. I'm not sure when, but Pournelle has suggested--to me, anyway--that he was pretty sure he was first with the notion. He's certainly old enough to have come up with it before 1971. Maybe I'll shoot him a note to ask, though.
As for blogrolling: oh, I'm not gonna be picking any fights, Laurence. Except I'll delink you, just cuz you're a putz. ;-)
(Just kidding.)
When I clicked the more link, I was kind of expecting a dissertation on linking philosophy and den Beste. While that would be interesting, this was even better. I might even have time to follow the links tonight.
I found I wasn't visiting den Beste, and found him getting tedious to read too often, so I save going there for when someone else points out a gem.
Here's the history of the Nolan Chart.
http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz-faq.html#faq03
The chart that is the centerpiece of the Quiz is based on a chart devised in 1969 by political scientist David Nolan. Nolan, a libertarian (he co-founded the Libertarian Party in 1971) came up with the chart because he was frustrated by the old "left-right" line that leaves no room for libertarians and others.
I think Pournelle still has him beat, as by 1969 the good doctor was already writing fiction; i.e. he had completed his disseratation and left school.
So, Dean, you gonna ask him, or shall I?
Go right ahead. Tell him I said hi. But I suspect you're right.
I like Pournelle's model as the current simplistic left and right, groups some wacko's to the far right and somewhat associated with Conservatives, just as some far left groups are unfairly associated with mainstream liberalism. I think the definition of the vertical is correct, or at least useful in this model, but I think it contains a bias towards liberal as, at least to my way of thinking, rational has positive connotations and irrational has negative connotations. I sure others will not see this as a great problem or will rely on the definition for the vertical axis, which I think is OK.
My point in this is that a working model that would be agreeable to a wider audience could be attained through some collaboration
Yes, well, one problem with Pournelle's model honestly is that certain people will always believe their model is the most rational--since in our society we tend to value rationalism.
But note that Pournelle considers himself "conservative" and yet places modern conservatism as slighly less on the rational side. The reason being that he believes conservatives are skeptical that reason alone can make society perfect. So they embrace rationalism less than tradition--but, of course, aren't obsessive about it.
In this sense I am a conservative myself--I am deeply skeptical of the notion that we can reason our way into the perfect society. Thus rationalists, like the Randites, are no more to be trusted than Marxists.
No no no no... You guys are missing the point! That label isn't "rational", it's "rationalism"! It's a poor tag, but I suppose a better one is lacking.
The proper definition is "the belief that society has problems that can be eventually solved" (by the state), AKA "attitude towards planned social progress."
This explains Pournelle's placement of conservatives; this doesn't mean they tend to the irrational, but that they (as you say, Dean) distrust the hyper-rational.
Rodney: you may find it easier to understand if you use the term rationalism instead rational. Try plugging that in, and think about it. :)
Or if that bothers you, use the term "attitude towards planned social progress"... :))
I agree that these aren't necessarily the best axes (the Doctor himself has said as much) but I have yet to see a set as good.
Dean: just got a reply back from the good doctor: he wrote his dissertation in 1962.
I think that settles that, don't you? :)