Prolegomenon

Back in 1995 then-professor at Emory University Steven Kautz, in his _Liberalism and Community_, argued that "enduring controversies regarding the nature of popular government" (p. 7) have given rise to three distinct strains which stem from natural inclinations among "human beings in self-governing communities...liberals (who love liberty), democrats (who love equality), and republicans (who love virtue)" (ibid.)

In my own investigations as a student of politics, I have learned that Kautz had his finger on something which, although his commentary appeared to have been largely ignored in mainstream political discourse, comes tantalizingly close to a view of political ideology, preference and behavior that synthesizes theory and observation, a feat quite rare in the field of political science. 

However, while Kautz was close, it appears that he did not follow this particular thread, exactly.  What may have hung him up was his assertion of "virtue" as a third natural tendency of human political preference in self-governing societies.  I submit that one must leave behind the preference for the perceived "proper" regime (i.e. one's own) and consider these tendencies in their own right.  In such light,  "virtue" disappears, for virtue is none but what is deemed best by the prevailing order.

Over the next few days I seek to explore the notions of liberty, equality, and order as preferences or political tendencies, not in self-governing societies, as Kautz suggests, but relative to individuals' preferences among things political.

But first I must make clear my reasons for this inquiry:  I am, as I have stated above, a student of politics.  In the interest of full disclosure I must state that I hold a Master's degree in Politics from the University of Dallas, and currently hold a position as an Instructor of Government within the Dallas County Community College system.  For those of you who see one or both of the above credentials as disqualification for my having anything at all constructive  to say on this matter, this project is designed especially for you.

My interest in this subject began with the realization that political ideological preferences have been historically misrepresented along a strict one-dimensional continuum identified along the lines of majority and opposition coalitions in European parliamentary bodies.  Under this model, "liberals" and "conservatives" are seen as irreconcilable opposites, forever locked in a struggle for ideological and policy dominance. 
This model is touted in the mainstream press, debated on the "Sunday morning political shows" (a term coined by a former student of mine in the Tarrant County System) and generally accepted by almost everyone seeking to understand partisan differences.

The problem is, nearly everyone agrees that the above characterization is almost entirely wrong.

And for those who think I'm about to advocate the "Political Compass"  or the much copied "Nolan Quiz" or OntheIssues.org's bastardization thereof, read on: there are fundamental difficulties with them as well.

The next several postings will be a part of a larger article which, although already written, has remained unpublished until it will appear in this format.  I believe that SuperBiff over at One Man's Rage/Calm has a copy of an earlier draft, and jimdesu from Lemurland may have one too, for his insight into a means of clarifying this theoretical model has been of great benefit. 

Because I have been habituated towards accessibility and openness, I appreciate commentary, and will therefore leave a comment page open.

Comments

[rufel]

ah... finally it begins...

[Anna]

I linked from my blog...congrats!