More and more these days, people who call themselves “liberals” have bumper-sticker philosophies that are liberal — they’re not


PragerU: Are You on the Wrong Side of History?

Are you on the wrong side or the right side of history? Is there even a “wrong side” or a “right side”? What do those terms mean and why do politicians and pundits use them? Nationally syndicated columnist and best-selling author Jonah Goldberg explains. Donate today to PragerU:

Constructing the Linear Political Spectrum/Compass Part I

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” John Adams

As with many academic endeavours, there has to be a balance between the competing requirements of clarity and comprehensiveness. An accounting of how the various political ideologies relate to each on a single scale also has to logical despite any emotional tendencies or preconceived biases.

This will be done by logically and systematically setting forth a set of rules for constructing this spectrum so that it is based on these constraints instead of the passions of the day. The end result will be based on modern day ideological definitions logically related to each other on a coherent and comprehensive scale.

1. A consistent overall metric in relating the ideologies to each other.

It should be clear that the political Right and the political Left have vastly different principles and goals. In general terms, it is aphoristic the political Right favours limited governance with an emphasis on individual rights, while the political Left favours extended governance and an emphasis on collective rights. In colloquial terms the political Right desires small government and the political Left desires big government. This can be seen in the modern and unbiased definitions of the various ideologies that will be discussed later on.

Given that it is axiomatic that the political Right favours decreased government control while the political Left favours it’s increase this will be the basic tenet in constructing the spectrum. While it may not comprehensively describe every nuance and facet of the political spectrum, it is a good starting point of setting forth an accounting of how the various ideologies relate to each other.

The scale of the spectrum will be numerically based to factor out biases and provide a consistent placement of the ideologies. In general terms, since the political Right prefers minimal governance the right end of the scale will be set at zero (0). And since the political Left prefers maximal governance, the left end of the scale will be set at one hundred (100).

This numerical metric will relate to the amount of government control is exerted on the populace. It will take into account the close interrelation between social and economic factors to yield a coherent and understandable product while providing an unbiased arrangement of the various political ideologies.

2. Modern and unbiased definitions of the political terminology.

In order to properly frame the spectrum, modern definitions and terminology will be used instead of outdated, politically biased and logically deficient terms. This is to be a political spectrum based on the factual data of modern times as opposed to a mélange of politically motivated factoids.

There are those who prefer to avoid the real world facts of an unbiased dictionary definitions free of internal contradictions. Unfortunately for them, the results of these constructs fail to meet the rigors factual reality and logic.

3. Utilisation of numerical rules and logic to properly construct the spectrum basing it on a factual linear progression instead of emotional preconceptions.

This is to insure that the resulting political spectrum makes logical sense. This will be done by assigning numerical certainty to some of the ideologies and testing the placement of the rest by the precepts of basic mathematics.

Having set this as the most logical and comprehensive metric the rules of mathematics should inform us as to the proper placement of the ideologies on the scale. A placement that fails to make mathematical sense should be rejected no matter it’s preconceived bias. In order to have clarity and be logically understandable a political spectrum must follow a mathematical progression from one end to the other.

The random placement of certain ideologies based on preconceived political biases only serves to discredit the results of such analysis.

4. Specific political terms can have a logical numerical value assigned to them based on their modern dictionary definitions.

These specific and factual data points will serve as a framework for the proper placement of other political ideologies within a certain logical range. As well as a test of the validity of the politely biased placements.

The ideological term anarchy, totalitarian and centre/moderate are based on definitions that can be easily quantified for placement on the political spectrum.

The Oxford English dictionary defines anarchy as:

“a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority”

The Merriam Webster dictionary defines anarchy as:

“Absence of government and absolute freedom of the individual, regarded as a political ideal”

Therefor we can assign a numerical value of zero (0) to this ideological term and place it on the right end of the spectrum based on the previously detailed rules.

The same process can be utilised for the other two terms.

The Oxford English dictionary defines totalitarian as:

“a system of government that is centralized and dictatorial and requires complete subservience to the state”

The Merriam Webster dictionary defines totalitarian as:

“a political regime based on subordination of the individual to the state and strict control of all aspects of the life and productive capacity of the nation especially by coercive measures (as censorship and terrorism)”

Thus we can assign a numerical value of one hundred (100) to this ideological term and place it on the Left end of the spectrum based on the previously detailed rules.

Finally, we can examine the terms centre and moderate and assign a logically numeric value to these terms.

The Oxford English dictionary defines the centre as:

“A point or part that is equally distant from all sides, ends, or surfaces”

The Merriam Webster dictionary defines the center as

“a grouping of political figures holding moderate views especially between those of conservatives and liberals”

It is therefore logical to set this data point in the middle of the scale with the numerical value of fifty (50) based on the previously detailed rules.

It also follows that with the political Right being right of centre, it should have a numerical values less than fifty ( < 50) but less than one hundred ( <100)

And it logically follows that with the political Left being left of centre, it should have a numerical value greater than fifty on the linear political scale ( > 50) but less than one hundred ( <100)

To summarise, a linear political spectrum scale based on the generic placements of Right and Left has been established. It will be constructed utilising the modern factual definitions on a numeric scale tested with mathematical precepts. Finally, the ends and middle of the spectrum have been set forth by the modern definitions for those positions on the scale.

In Part II the rest of primary political ideologies will be placed on the spectrum based on the their modern, unbiased definitions and based on where they relate to the already established data points.

How Big Should Government Be? Left vs. Right #1 by PragerU

Transcript excerpt
One of the most important differences between the Left and the Right is how each regards the role and the size of the government.

The Left believes that the state should be the most powerful force in society. Among many other things, the government should be in control of educating every child; should provide all health care; and should regulate often to the minutest detail how businesses conduct their business — in Germany, for instance, the government legislates the time of day stores have to close. In short, there should ideally be no power that competes with Government. Not parents, not businesses, not private schools, not religious institutions; not even the individual human conscience.

Conservatives, on the other hand, believe the government’s role in society should be limited to absolute necessities such as national defense and to being the resource of last resort to help citizens who cannot be helped by family, by community, or by religious and secular charities.

Conservatives understand that as governments grow in size and power, the following will inevitably happen:

1. There will be ever-increasing amounts of corruption. Power and money breed corruption. People in government will sell government influence for personal and political gain.

2. Individual liberty will decline. With a few exceptions such as an unrestricted right to abortion, individual liberty is less important to the Left than to the Right. This is neither an opinion nor a criticism. It is simple logic. The more control the government has over people’s lives, the less liberty people have.

3. Countries with ever expanding governments will either reduce the size of their government or eventually collapse economically.

4. In order to pay for an ever-expanding government, taxes are constantly increased.

5. Big government produces big deficits and ever increasing — and ultimately unsustainable — debt.

Unless big governments get smaller, they will all eventually collapse under their own weight — with terrible consequences socially as well as economically.

6. The bigger the government, the greater the opportunities for doing great evil. The twentieth century was the most murderous century in recorded history. And who did all this killing? Big governments. Evil individuals without power can do only so much harm. But when evil individuals take control of a big government, the amount of harm they can do is essentially unlimited. The Right fears Big Government. The Left fears Big Business. But Coca-Cola can’t break into your house or confiscate your wealth — only Big Government can do that. As irresponsible as any Big Business has ever been, it is only Big Government that can build concentration camps and commit genocide.

7. Big government eats away at the moral character of a nation.

Without the belief in an ever-expanding government, there is no left. Without a belief in limited government, there is no right.

The Left should celebrate President Trump, because it could have been far worse for them.

That headline was not meant to be sarcasm, the nation’s Socialist left does have a reason to be thankful that it’s not another Republican occupying the Oval office.

Of course, for the Left to lose an election means a reversal of their fundamental birthright to rule over everyone else for the collective good of all mankind. They are the ones they have been waiting because only they can heal the sea level and lower the planet.

For the people on the Left, It is an article of faith that they should be in complete control since people cannot be trusted to be in complete control. They and they alone know the frailty of the human sprit and how it cannot be trusted to act properly so it is up to them to act properly and control everyone else.

After all, if they didn’t keep an unblinking eye on the rest of us, we might enjoy life with freedom and liberty without their control.

Okay, that part actually was sarcasm…….

But let’s think about what would happened if Trump hadn’t run. What would have transpired in an alternative history without him in the race?

We know from past election cycles that the nation’s Socialist Media would have chosen a GOP candidate to champion who would be destined to lose to their side. Had it not been Trump then most likely they would have pushed Jeb Bush, Chris Christie or one of the lower tier candidates to the hilt. Since a good portion of the party has witnessed this scam from past elections this would have gone nowhere. So instead of their preferred candidate attaining momentum the race would have been more competitive, reflecting the actual wishes of the party.

After all, their side needs every advantage it can get and selecting the GOP nominee for us was part and parcel of their winning strategy.

The early part of the primary season had Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio at the top of the pack with them polling favourably against the presumptive nominee of the DNC. Therefore, those two would be the last choice for the nation’s Socialist Media, with them being decidedly Conservative while beating them at their own game of identity politics.

Without Trump in the race, the media also wouldn’t of had his the ‘assistance’ in bestowing childish nicknames on his opponents. In this both Trump and the media helped demonise the candidates the media feared the most by repeating those nicknames endlessly, cementing certain perceptions in the mind of the primary electorate.

It is quite evident that there is an undercurrent of discontent in the country, after 8 long years of ‘rule’ by the Left the people were ready for a change. Events leading up to the general election only served to emphasise this manifestation. Thus the likelihood that the GOP would have won with Ted Cruz or Marko Rubio having the highest probabilities in this regard.

While It could be argued that a certain percentage of support for Trump would have been personality based, the rest of it was a rejection of the Left’s Socialist national agenda. A good portion was simply revulsion at what Comrade Clinton would have done to the people’s common sense civil rights. Her hostility to even second amendment thought was quite clear.

So how would it have been that much worse for the Left if Trump had not been the nominee?

Well, first of all a Cruz or Rubio administration would be free of the baggage of Trump. They would have had extensive experience in the workings of government. Their actions would have been based on principles instead of populism.

Their expedience in government would have meant a much smoother rollout of their polices giving the media and the left (sorry to be redundant there..) a smaller objective to attack. Their hysterics would have to be centred on the fundamental role of government instead of emotional convulsions.

Without the media’s built in mode of attack, they would have to focus on policy instead of personality. The debate would have centred around the role of government in people’s lives and how the national ‘progress’ towards socialism the past 8 years was a colossal mistake.

Instead of executive orders and late night tweets it would have been a well prepared legislative agenda and clear and concise communications from a White house that had a specific direction.

The nation’s Socialist Left is hanging by their fingernails, and with the exception of the Obama personality cult they have been losing for years. The last thing they need to happen is an open discussion of their base ideology and how it’s been a failure everywhere it’s been tried. Leftist can’t even decide how to argue if they are Socialists or not. Some keep up the tired old “We’re not ideologues, we just want what is practical and what works”. While others have gone the opposite direction declaring anything the government touches as ‘socialism’

The relegation of the Left away from the levers of power has seen them become increasingly unhinged. Without Trump in the White House, they wouldn’t be able to fall back on what he’s said in a tweet or a speech. They would have had the same reaction with another president, but it would have been because a Conservative president was trying to restore liberty to the nation. They could hardly look like ‘liberals’ if that were the reason for rioting.

Thus the distractions of Trump gives the Left an easy way to avoid the fundamental issues facing the nation, for that they should be eternally grateful to the man.

PragerU – America’s Socialist Origins

Was America once socialist? Surprisingly, yes. The early settlers who arrived at Plymouth and Jamestown in the early 1600s experimented with socialist communes. Did it work? History professor Larry Schweikart of the University of Dayton shares the fascinating story. Donate today to PragerU: