Mangling the Political Spectrum and other Right Wing Failures

People on the right do not know their own ideology. Or at the very least, they do not have much of a command over it, and needless to say, this is quite problematic.

After having “failed” at enough ambitious political adventures, I eventually decided to grab the towel, toss it in the ring and make myself as scarce from politics as I possibly could, and by and large I succeeded at this for a couple of years. During this time however, my new found indifference coupled with an innate interest in the subject allowed me to see the political universe from just the right perspective, so that the broader patterns within it became evident and “Eureka;” I had figured out the left with complete certainty!

I set forth in writing my book at that point, but left wing ideology, being just one half of the ideological puzzle, needed to be joined by an explanation of right wing ideology as well, and so as I began to educate myself on its origins, more truths about its nature emerged.

A brief explanation of right wing ideology is that it came to maturity during the Age of Enlightenment, when kings and nobles ruled Europe, making it quite evident that political equality did not exist in those societies, or virtually any that had come before them. This social order was challenged by the philosophers who had developed the concept of Natural Law, most notably with John Locke, whose “Two Treatises of Government” was published in 1690. In his Second Treatise, Locke explains that all human abilities come from God and or nature, and that no man has any more or less of a right to avail of them, which is the ultimate rationale for political equality and which became the fundamental philosophical foundation of the United States and her founding documents.

What Locke, the philosophers before him and the founders after him were able to deduce and promote was the idea that natural human rights are the most fundamental building block of political theory and political societies. They are the smallest, indivisible political units; the atoms of the political universe if you will.

One would think that if the base matter of the political universe had been identified, then that base matter would be what we would use to measure all things political. Not just out of necessity, but also out of pure simplicity. But people have a tendency to complicate the simple, and this couldn’t be more evident than when looking at the various political spectra which have made their way into the social discourse.

(Click to enlarge images and “go back” in your browser to return to the article.)

Here’s a political spectrum that most of us have probably seen before in some form, and although it’s accurate and educational, things that are accurate and educational usually don’t hold the attention of people who aren’t interested in accuracy or education. I speak of course of our friends the liberals. There’s nothing wrong with this spectrum it’s just that we can simplify it. And after having done so, we can also change some other ideas that much of society has completely backwards.


Ok, we’ve all seen this one too and it’s not so bad. But it’s not that great either. First of all, we don’t need this 3-Dimentional business and all of these labels all over the place. And it kind of looks like a game of Battleship, where we all get to compare the tiny deviations in our boat’s position on the grid, after we take the quiz that always accompanies this one. Not only that, you can see that the linear “left-right” axis is subordinate to the “Libertarian” label at the top, which is just another give away that this spectrum is mostly about marketing for those oh-so-special libertarians and their “above-it-all” outlook. So what’s next?

(Click to enlarge)

Alright, now we’re really digging into the weeds, and it’s hard to tell if this next spectrum would be more or less hilarious if it wasn’t seen as actually being accurate by the majority of the people. I think it would be less hilarious, because the thing about hilarity in politics is that it is always a morbid sort of hilarity, since it usually focuses on absolutely horrific ideas that a vast number of people actually believe to be true!

So let’s start checking this one out, moving from left to right. Here we go! Chairman Mao; Communist, despot, mass murderer, evil and presiding over a nation with very few human rights. Up next is Sweden, I guess. Which I suppose is “Socialist”, meaning a mixed bag of human rights though not exactly extreme tyranny. And then we keep going towards the center where human rights increase. We skip along past “liberalism” then “conservatism” and then there’s Dubya and then… HITLER!


So let’s get this straight. You start out at the complete tyranny of communism, and then things keep getting “a little more free, a little more free” the further to the right you get, but then instead of “a little more free” at the very end you get… Hitler?

Now one thing to keep in mind is that this spectrum doesn’t start going haywire once it reaches Hitler, it actually starts going haywire when it runs into George Bush. You see, this spectrum – which is obviously the work of liberals – is fairly accurate as it goes from left to right, but at the point that it reaches George Bush, the liberals clearly feel that things are going down hill and so they pause in their minds for a moment to think where the rudderless ship of their political imaginations would take them after contemplating the horror of right wing conservative Republicans. And after searching around in the void of their intellects for a bit longer, random evil is plucked out of the air to complete their inane political spectra. “Nazis” are “right wing”, they will imagine. “Monarchy” is “right wing”, they will posit. “Fascism, racism, theocracy, slavery, the KKK and any tyranny besides communism is right wing” they will declare in unison from their collective mental crawl spaces from which they have pulled their random institutions of evil to illustrate the Republican society taken to its so-called rational end.

Needless to say, this spectrum is one of the dumbest ideas in our society, but because the right is so complacent on the issue of ideology itself, these ideas stick and are currently part of the mainstream.

Let’s see what else the world of political spectra has to offer us!


What? Gee, thanks for “simplifying” things for us with this… thing.

(Click to enlarge)

Ok, enough already! This is getting ridiculous!

As we have seen, even with political spectra that are rational, we may not be able to immediately grasp their essence, and this is a problem. If the fundamental political elements of society are human rights, then would it not be a rational concept to create the spectrum that actually measures this? Wouldn’t it make sense to say that of the trillions of human rights with the potential to exist within the society, that movement along the political spectrum should measure their presence or absence?

Take any issue as an example. Why not the minimum wage? What is the political component of the minimum wage debate? That debate would be over the rights that people have to hire the labor, and to work for the wages, of their choosing. The minimum wage issue is a “wage rights” issue, where minimum wage laws decrease human rights. We see the same phenomenon with healthcare laws, where less choices mean less rights, and as such the society is moved to the left on the political spectrum.

When there are more choices and more rights, the spectrum is moved to the right. When there are less choices and less rights, the spectrum is moved to the left. We can illustrate this graphically using the most simplified and the most intuitive political spectrum, which is shown right here.

(2) Image # 6 The Spectrum
(Click to enlarge)

This is the spectrum that we need to begin using. It is simple. It gets the point across quickly, and beyond that, it does something that the first accurate spectrum cannot do, which is to defeat the inaccuracies of the liberal’s political spectrum, so that we may begin to eradicate their incorrect ideas from the mainstream.

For instance, how on earth did the KKK ever become labeled a “right wing” organization when their entire purpose was to remove the human rights of black Americans? How did the idea of Fascism become synonymous with “right wing” when its sole purpose is in removing the human rights of the citizens where it is in place? And how exactly do people get away with portraying Adolf Hitler and Naziism as the next rational progression past the Republicans in their political spectra? The answer is that it suits their agenda and we let them get away with it, because we don’t have a proper command over our own ideology and we don’t avail of the political spectrum that would give us that command. We could point out that Fascism, slavery, theocracy, racism, Naziism, the KKK and of course communism are all left wing enterprises and we would be quite correct in doing so!

If we are to get serious about defeating the left then we are going to need to win the battle of ideas. As things stand we are losing that battle. One place to start would be in spreading some better ideas amongst ourselves, but we should also be bringing these superior ideas into the mainstream as well. So maybe after reading this, you might try visiting Wikipedia to see where they place Naziism, Fascism and the KKK on the political spectrum. And after you have, you might even decide to try and clear some things up for them.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.