Summary: A Multiplicity of Faction

In sum, libertarianism, liberalism, and conservatism, with their concerns for liberty, equality, and order, have what could be described in Aristotelian terms “defective” forms (Aristotle, Politics.  III.7 esp. 1279b1-10 on perverse regimes) in anarchism, communism, and fascism.  That these linkages are perceived also results in a common refrain, whereby a strident ideologue privately condemns followers of other ideologies as extremists, followers of “defective” ideologies, and threats to his objective.  For the liberal, conservatives are fascists, and libertarians anarchists. From the conservative view, liberals are communists and libertarians anarchists.  From the libertarian view, liberals are communists and conservatives fascists.  Thus we arrive at the following comparison:

Figure 1: Moderate and Extreme Ideologies

Ideological Axis	Moderate ideology	Extreme ideology
Liberty	Libertarianism	Anarchism
Equality	Liberalism	Communism
Order	Conservatism	Fascism

However, few if any of these ideologues are generally willing flatly and publicly to accuse each other of espousing their farthest extreme, and so they content themselves with exaggerating the negative qualities of competing ideologies to the point of vilifying their adherents.  Similarly, a true anarchist, communist, or fascist may adopt for himself the name of their more moderate counterpart in order to maximize support from would-be constituents. It is this tendency among strident ideologues, I believe, that produces the rancor among ideological adherents and frustration among even the most level-headed in the American public, bringing many to attempt to withdraw from political life altogether, on the grounds that they “felt cheated by our politics…in liberalism (they) saw a creed that demeaned (their) values; in conservatism (they) saw a doctrine that shortchanged (their) interests.” (Dionne 345)  E.J. Dionne describes the fundamental conflict as a “false polarization in our politics, in which liberals and conservatives keep arguing about the same things when the country wants to move on” (Dionne 11).

That said, how do we tell the difference?  How can we determine that the politicians and pundits we’re listening to are liberals, conservatives, libertarians, or their maniacal counterparts?  This is not an idle question, for we ignore it at our peril.  If we cannot tell the difference between a mere ideologue and an extremist, how can we expect to make informed political decisions amidst a multiplicity of faction?

 

Comments

[jonathon]

hmm. perhaps this distinction is more properly Montesquieuian than Aristotelian.
Montesquieu describes states as either moderate or despotic according to their laws, mores, manners, and customs.

[Daniel Berk]

I am very impressed with this site both in terms of intent and content. Also having an academic project on-line for all to see is an interesting thing to do.

I have recently developed a new on-line political test. You make a dinstinction between academic tests and recreational tests and mine very much falls into the latter catagory. Nonetheless it is something you may be interested in looking at and can access it here: http://www.okcupid.com/tests/take?testid=16378307404171364367

This test uses a similar concept to that of LEO. In my case the terms are equality + liberty + stability. I have been thinking along these lines for a while as can be seen at this (now broken) test site: http://yoyo.its.monash.edu.au/~mongoose/quiz/

The older test is very like many others in that it has two axes (economic and societal) and then overlays political labels onto the chart. The new one is different in that it uses the three principles as its variables and assesses on the basis of statements of principle rather than opinions on issues.

I am happy to discuss this further if it is useful to you. Also you can see discussion of the test at my weblog: http://lazyludditelog.blogspot.com/2006/04/my-new-politics-test.html

Best wishes with your project.

Regards
Daniel