THE FAULTY POLITICAL SPECTRUM

Stuart K. Hayashi


           These days, many express understandable confusion over the many different terms used in political rhetoric. Exactly what is a “liberal” or a conservative? What really separates a Democrat from a Republican?

           The faulty “political spectrum” used in modern textbooks does not clear things up; it only adds to the perplexion. According to this “spectrum,” the different categories, from left to right, are as follows: socialist (“radical”), liberal, moderate, conservative, fascist (“fascist”).

           This “spectrum” contains a number of insidiously narrow-minded implications. One of them is that Conservatives are linked to Fascists, when such a connection does not exist. Conservatives want the government to leave the economy alone, while Fascism revolves entirely around the government controlling it. (You may have the misconception that fascist means racist and nationalistic; I'll address this false belief in a minute). However, this convoluted notion persists because "Liberals" ceaselessly call Conservatives “Reactionaries who want to live in the past,” just because they oppose the addition of even more Draconian regulations the “liberal” elite has misnomered “progressive.” By doing this, the “liberals” have successfully created the false impression that their wanting to re-establish Big Government is “progressive,” even though Big government is actually a relic of primitive collectivism, from African tribes to Feudal Asia to early pilgrim society pre-dating the establisment of American property rights. However, the conservatives actually share in the guilt, since they do not dispute the labels of “reactionary” and “traditional.” This group claims to support capitalism, and yer they do not even understand that it is not an economic system of the past, but one for all time, especially the future. Now, due to the efforts of intellectually dishonest writers, people have the idea that the categories on the spectrum are arranged according to how much one is “in favor of change,” with the people “most in favor of change,” on the left and the ones “least in favor of change” on the right. But exactly what is this “change”? Ecology-oriented leftists actually oppose tecnological progress even more adamantly than right-wingers, and the mainstream “liberals” themselves oppose change when it is one from socialism to capitalism. “Change” and “reform,” in their minds, are only “change” and “reform” when they have to do with increasing the government's power.

            To further distort the public's perception, many members of the media and intelligentsia have tried to hide the numerous parallels between socialism and fascism. To do this, they have attempted to slowly change the definition of the word fascist, and with great success. In most people's minds today, a Fascist is someone who is intensely racist and nationalistic. However, the actual founder of fascism--Benito Mussolini--defined it as something different: a collectivist political system in which citizens still have private property rights, only the use and disposal of this property is completely controlled by the State. (Which is like saying "You officially own your property; it's just that the government can and will dictate over how it used against your wishes" or "You have an inalienable right to life, except for when the government feels like killing you.") [John T. Flynn, The Roosevelt Myth, 1948, Fiftieth anniversary reprint edition, (San Francisco: Fox & Wilkes, 1998), p. 39, 73]. So basically, a Fascist government is just like a Socialist one, only it pretends to have individual property rights, when the government actually has the uncontested authority to control the lives and belongings of everyone. Stated more simply, fascism is socialism masquerading as capitalism. Most of the misconception comes from when Hitler adopted Mussolini's near-Communist system, and made two fundamental additions--intense nationalism and racism. Hitler's system was accurately dubbed the National Socialist(!) Workers Party of Germany; “Nazi” for short. Most political scholars gloss over this or lamely say “National Socialism is nothing like regular socialism.” If they actually know about they're talking about; that's a lie. Nazism and communism are both totalitarian. Both systems preach the non-existence of objective reality. Both systems demand that a person sacrifice himself for the sake of the group. Both systems elevate society over the individual. Both systems worship "society" as their god. Individual profit is illegal under both systems. Both systems have controlled economies. The simiilarities go on and on. As close as his system was to socialism, however, Hitler placed it in the even more specific category of fascist, where it fit in perfectly. When fascist Germany became feared for its anti-semitism and nationalism, people only remembered these two features as Fascism, forgetting the true, original definition.

           “Liberals” have taken advantage of both this new definition and the flawed political spectrum to smear their enemies and avoid well-deserved criticism. Because the “spectrum” is so universally accepted by people of almost all political leanings, “liberals” often get away with calling the most anti-fascist conservatives “fascists” and “reactionaries,” just because all of these categories are wrongly placed on the Right. In fact, in recent years, “liberals” themselves have advocated the most fascist laws, but have evaded that label because “everyone knows that fascists are right-wing; not left-wing.” In truth, a nationalistic racist is only a fascist if he wishes a large government controlled the economy. In that same vein, a non-Aryan “liberal” is still a fascist if he asserts that (a facade of) private property should still exist, but that the politicians should have the power to regulate all production and trade. Just as not all Nazis are fascist, and not all fascists are Nazis, not all fascists are right-wing. Hawaii's Democrat legislature is neither right wing or Nazi-like (though some of my friends may beg to differ on that view), but many of its members do have fascist tendencies. Fortunately for them, they will never be considered as such, just because “everyone knows that all fascists are right-wing (and therefore Republican); not left-wing (a.k.a. Democrat)."

           What's even more idiotic is that this “moderate” categorizes socialism and fascism as opposites when they are, in fact, nearly identical. What's worse, a “moderate” is placed half-way between two forms of the same tyranny! According to the “spectrum,” the great choice in life is only between one form of dictatorship or another; freedom isn't even listed as an option here! One is left to wonder, “You mean, the opposite of dictatorship is . . . dictatorship?!” The layman is then expected to think, Well, if both sides are terrible, then all extremism is terrible, so I might as well be a moderate who refuses to take a firm stand on any issue, thus promoting cowardly middle-of-the-road Pragmatism. People are easy to manipulate when they're prejudiced towards anything “extreme”; they will oppose extreme liberty as vehemently as do extreme tyranny, just because “anything ‘extremist’ is bad.” What's more, as long as no one objects to the fact that freedom is not even on the spectrum, people will no longer consider it an option, instead substititing “being a moderate” for liberty. What they fail to understand is that, if “moderate” is half socialist and half fascist, then it's the sum of half totalitarian and half totalitarian, which still equals whole totalitarian.

            This “spectrum” is based on the seating in the French Parliament. Originally, the Parliament put Socialists next to Fascists, where they belonged. But the two groups continously got into fights, not over principles, since theirs were the same, but over which group would dictate over everyone else. To avoid violence, the parliament members set the two groups on opposite sides. When discussing politics in modern times, such a system of classification is outdated, but it continues to be used today by “liberals” and the spineless Pragmatists because of the knee-jerk prejudices they inspire towards conservatism and “extremist” libertarians. On this chart, liberty and Libertarians have been completely snubbed, while statism has been double in exposure.

           Libertarian David F. Nolan has created a far more accurate method of classifying people politically, and that is what is presented here. [Click to see it at www.self-gov.org.] Basically, modern conservatives favor economic freedom, but oppose personal conduct liberty, while modern “liberals” oppose both. The only political party which favors both economic freedom and personal liberty is the Libertarian alternative. Now the three classifications can be compared and contrasted.

           Overall, conservatives believe that the government has no say in what is done with private property, but that it does when it comes to what a person does with his/her own body. In other words, they want to free your possessions, but control your soul. That's why they want to prohibiit drugs, prostitution, gambling, ticket-scalping, assisted suicide, sexual experimentation, abortion, and other “sinful” acts. They desire to combine church and state and impose Christianity on just about everyone. The Republican Party is predominantly composed of these people. It should also be stated that, while they support individualism politically, the same is not true socially. Because they, like the “liberals,” believe in both altruism and collectivism, they believe that achievers exist just for their utility to others; namely, that rich people are worthless if they don't give their money away. The difference is that Conservatives won't force a rich person to “give” his money away with some law, even though that is something they would prefer. Also on the plus side, they at least understand the values of hard work and earning, which is more than what can be said for the leftists.

            The “liberals” are much worse. I use quotation marks, bcause the word liberal is supposed to mean loose and easy-going, while this clicque believes in a government that stringently controls the production, distribution, and use of just about every place, deal, and inanimate object. This is why they have established social “security” (which is actually a regressive tax), welfare, antitrust laws, child labor laws, Hawaiian “sovereignty”, mandatory schooling, environmental regulations, animal “rights” laws, and every other government-imposed violation of property rights. At least in the 1960s, however, “liberals” at least understood that a person should be able to do what he wants with his own body, as long as he does not initiate force on others. Nowadays, however, “liberals” tend to agree with “conservatives” that your body belongs to the “people as a whole,” and that politicians should initiate force on people to “protect” people from themselves. That's why the “liberals” have gone overboard with the War on Drugs, prostitution laws, and are attempting to establish Tobacco Prohibition. Now, when it comes to how a person treats his own body, “liberals” are even worse than conservatives! In his Midweek column, a prominent Hawaii “liberal” by the name of Dan Boylan openly expressed his desire for censorship in America. Though they still support people's rights to euthanasia and abortion, “liberals” are now making a gradual transition to fully authoritarian. Members of the “liberal” movement are almost exclusively Democrats, but they can also be found in the Green Party.

            It should be added that twentieth-century “liberals” should not be confused with the liberals of Adam Smith's day. Back then, liberal meant libertarian--in favor of freedom in both economics and personal conduct. The word liberal was later corrupted by socialists who proclaimed themselves “liberal” and called all of their opponents, including genuine liberals like Adam Smith, “conservative.”

           Libertarians, unlike the two other groups, favor both fiscal freedom and personal liberty; they want to free both your possessions and your soul. They oppose the initiation of physical force by any power. This means limiting the size and power of government, since the majority of its delegating powers come from threatening violence. Every law is backed by a gun, because, if you break the law, violence will be used on you, and the more you resist, the greater the severity of the force until a gun is finally used on you. The only laws that would exist are only ones retaliating against the parties which started the force on people's lives, liberty, and property. Such force comes in the form of physical harm, theft, fraud, and breach of contract. Even if people disapproved of certain forms of behavior, such as cloning, prostitution, and providing children with jobs at both the consent of the child and the parents, they would still be legal, because people who do not consent in these activities do not have to participate in them. The only government agencies which would exist would be the police, to protect people from criminals; the military, the defend us from foreign invaders; and the courts, to settle disputes of contract. In a Libertarian society, for example, attending schools would be voluntary; not mandated by law. Government social services, such as mail delivery and education, would be privatized. This actually would not be a problem for the poor, because shrinking the government would greatly reduce taxation, and everyone, including the poor, would have more money to save or spend as they see fit. Even if some poor families could not afford tuition into private schools, this problem could be solved by private charities; these organizations could pay for them and spare the taxpayers further extortion from the government.

           That, my friends, is politics in a nutshell.


Note: You can find out what's really wrong with Libertarianism in my "A Vacuum in Libertarianism?"

Return to Essay Page!

Back to Main


The above essay is Copyright © 1999 Stuart K. Hayashi, and may not be reproduced by any means without his written consent. All rights reserved.