A few years back, I read a book called Three Languages of Politics, by Arnold Kling. The book (which can be read for free at the link, btw) proposes that, instead of viewing political ideology as a continuous axis (as in right← →left) or as a spectrum (as in the popular political quadrant grid), it makes more sense to think of each political ideology in terms of its own values, on its own axis.
Kling’s book was instrumental in helping me develop a deeper comprehension of political viewpoints, both my own and those opposing mine. It’s always easy to assume a person who disagrees with you is just ignorant or misinformed, and although that may be true, you’re never going to achieve agreement or even tolerance of each other’s opinions coming from that angle. Understanding why a person sees the world the way they do—what values they’re championing—inspires empathy and helps you communicate your own ideas in a way they are more likely to understand. It also helps to know if someone is so deeply entrenched in their particular axis that they will never be able to see beyond it.
According to Kling, there's an important reason why it so often seems impossible to discuss politics with people who are on "the other side." The three main political leanings in the United States today don't just disagree on how things should be done; they disagree vehemently on how to view reality. Each one views the world, and therefore politics, within the confines of its own ideological axis.
Progressive Axis: Oppressed← →Oppressors
Conservative Axis: Civilization/Tradition← →Barbarism
Libertarian Axis: Freedom← →Coercion/Tyranny
Two of these axes do not touch, and the third touches the other two only in certain places. And that's why you can't find any common ground from which to agree, or the base level of understanding it would require to disagree amicably.
None of these axes are, on their face, bad. It's good to be opposed to oppressors and to stand up for the oppressed. It's good to safeguard civilization against influences that would seek to undermine it. And it's good to value individual freedom and fight against tyranny.
To me, here's where the trouble comes in: when a person views ALL issues—whether political, social, or economic—as being representative of their chosen axis, even when they're not.
For example, most progressives feel that the gender wage gap exists due to oppression applied by a misogynist capitalism against female workers. Most conservatives and libertarians think that the causes of the wage gap are pretty much entirely economic, based on the different career choices women and men tend to make in the aggregate.
If the disparity is created by individual choices, then there is no oppressor, and no one is oppressed. Therefore, if the disparity is to be reduced, the focus should be placed on changing people’s individual choices, and not on changing national policy. But progressives are unable to separate this issue from their axis. In every political issue, there must always be an oppressor, there must always be the oppressed. Even when the evidence shows otherwise. Because of this, the issue will never be solved to progressives' liking, and any attempt by conservatives and libertarians to discuss it with them will fail, and in many cases, those conservatives and libertarians will be labeled as misogynists for failing to see the world through the progressive axis.
An example on the conservative side: most conservatives support the institution of policing because they see it as an essential pillar, safeguarding the values of civilization. They value the good work that police do, like investigating crimes and rescuing children from abusive homes. Because police, to them, are a pillar of civilization, they see protests against police or attempts to reform or reduce funding for police departments as barbarism—a turning away from what is good and wholesome about their country and culture.
From that axis, a conservative can't see the progressive view that there are people being oppressed, and that the police are the oppressors. They can't see the libertarian view that the police have become tyrants, violating the freedoms of peaceful individuals. And because they can't see it, the issue will never be solved to their liking.
Now, here’s where I reveal the extent of my bias. Maybe.
As a libertarian, I can think of plenty of situations where the progressive and conservative axes apply, in addition to the libertarian one. But—perhaps it's just due to my own political bias—I can't think of a single political situation in which the freedom← →coercion axis does not apply. I can think of many issues where freedom/coercion isn't the major contributing factor, but only at the social and economic levels. Once a social/economic issue is politicized (once government steps in), it automatically becomes a freedom/coercion issue.
For instance: homelessness. In and of itself, it is not an issue of freedom vs. coercion. It's a social/economic problem that has always existed, and probably always will. But when governments get involved, it is a freedom/coercion issue. Governments restrict what kinds of housing people are allowed to build and live in, eliminating cheap options for the poorest among us. Police arrest people for being homeless in the wrong place at the wrong time, and fine people for feeding the homeless in an unapproved fashion. There are dozens of other ways that government exacerbates, or even creates homelessness. And when government steps in to try and "solve" homelessness, it necessarily violates people's freedom to do as they wish with their own property.
The very nature of politics is to encroach on freedom. Everything government does requires either the restricting of individual freedom, the confiscation of private property, or both. Each little regulation, each new tax, is a step away from freedom. Enough encroachment, and you have tyranny.
Most of us hold very closely to our own axes, and, as you can see, I'm no exception. Though I try to understand and empathize with the other axes, and apply them where they’re applicable, I have ultimately concluded that the liberty← →coercion axis is the most logical (by which I mean able to be consistently applied across the widest variety of political issues without contradicting itself) and moral axis from which to view the world. The other two axes—while not to be dismissed entirely—are secondary to it, because, at least in the political realm, most real problems arising from the other two axes can be prevented by focusing on the liberty← →coercion axis.
I realize, of course, that conservatives and progressives both think their axes are the most logical and moral, but I think the difference is that each excludes both other axes in their habitual thinking about political subjects, while the libertarian axis does not exclude either of the other axes.
What do you think?
Is this a better or worse way to view political differences than the traditional right-left axis or quadrant map?
Are there any other ideological axes you’ve run into, or do Kling’s three pretty much cover it in your experience?
Which axis do you most closely adhere to, and do you find that it helps you better understand the world and navigate life, or is it a cumbersome bias?
How difficult is it to talk to others who hold to opposing axes?
Thank you for reading!
If you love this essay, please share it. If you’d like more essays (and fiction!) in your inbox, subscribe for free! And if you’d like to support this newsletter and my other projects, please consider the options below.
-Starr
Social Links
Follow me on Twitter
Connect with me on MeWe
Follow me on Flote
I can drone on and on for days about this...
I do disagree, at least in the part of viewing things on an axis, as an Anarchist I see something far more disturbing at play.
I see the dividends of a psychologically fractured people. The people do not see reality at all, they see a distorted version of reality. It is one that they themselves do not abide by their own "axis" and make petty excuses for their actions.
The most insane claims of actual conspiracy theorists are on the level with the majority in their distorted view of reality.
Very applicable discussion and astute observation. I often tend to view issues along the freedom/coercion axis, as you do, and sometimes feel dumbfounded that others just don't see it the same way. Thanks for explaining why that is!