About a decade ago, economist Arnold Kling first started talking about an “ideological triangle” as a better model of American politics than the left-right axis. He later elaborated this in a short book called The Three Languages Of Politics, that for all its brevity is probably the most insightful thing I’ve ever read on the subject.
Paraphrasing his argument in different terms: just like any color we can see can be created as a blend of three primary colors (red, green, blue), thus every political position in the US can be represented as a blend of three “primary colors”: Progressive, Libertarian, and Conservative.
The primary Progressive sees everything through the lens of Oppressed vs. Oppressor.
The primary Libertarian: of individual freedom vs. state coercion.
The primary Conservative: of order vs. chaos, or civilization vs. barbarism.
Elsewhere, in an earlier article, Dr. Kling gave a slightly different description:
[…]Think of three points on an ideological triangle:
1. Point L, where you believe that markets are effective at processing information and solving problems. This position is to take a radically pro-market view, and to let markets fix their own failures.
2. Point C, where you believe that tradition incorporates the evolved use of information to solve problems. This position is to be very cautious about overthrowing existing institutional arrangements.
3. Point P, where you believe that expert technocrats should be in charge. You are comfortable with throwing out tradition and markets in order to cede power to experts.[…]
Aside from primary colors, another metaphor that comes to mind is that of a ternary phase diagram in chemistry or materials science.
For example, suppose you have different alloys of three metals (“ternary alloys”): copper, tin, and zinc. (For a binary alloy of just two metals, a line would suffice, as the fraction of the second metal is always one minus the fraction of the first.) By construction, Pure copper, pure tin, and pure zinc would be the three points of the triangle. The vertex between copper and tin would represent the various bronze alloys; the vertex between copper and zinc the various brass alloys; for the third vertex, tin-zinc, I can’t think of a trivial name right now.
So what’s inside the triangle? So-called “gunmetal” would be, as it is a true ternary alloy of all three metals.
Coming back to politics. Arnold Kling’s “progressive” (P), “libertarian” (L), and “conservative” (C) archetypes are the three points of the triangle there. On the C–L vertex (call it the “bronze of politics”) you have various blends of “conservatarianism”, which is actually where many so-called “right-wingers” in the US are.
On the P-L vertex (call it the “brass of politics”) you might find people variously called “left-libertarians”, “weedertarians”, or libertines. Classical liberalism I would place near the P-L vertex, albeit more toward the middle of the triangle as it is generally not completely averse to tradition.
Finally, a certain type of “theocon” to my jaundiced eye looks like they are close to the C-P vertex. For example, those who appeal to religious tradition while framing themselves as an oppressed minority who need to be supported by the state [in the Israeli context, I’m looking at you, Shas and UTJ ;)] or those who support “degrowth” and “climate” policies from a traditional religious perspective.
Most real people, however, are somewhere in the middle — in the “gunmetal zone”, if you like.
I was put in mind of this metaphor as I see the ever more bizarre “alphabet soup” corporate activism in action in the USA. If your worldview is close to the “P” corner, then it depends on there being one or more victim groups that one can champion. One can talk about oppression of women and “the patriarchy” — but in an era where college graduates are majority female and essentially all professions are open to women, it doesn’t cut the way it used to. Homosexuality, once seen as deviant, is now so widely accepted that even in pretty hardcore conservative circles, people like Douglas Murray or Dave Rubin are basically accepted for who they are. As various formerly discriminated-against minorities become mainstream, do the primary “P”, in order to remain relevant, have to pivot to ever more exotic and niche minorities that they can “defend” against “oppression” by the “benighted” majority?
TO BE CONTINUED…
ADDENDUM: what about communism and fascism, let alone National Socialism? In the Euro spectrum, the political left-right axis basically runs from international socialism to ethnic hypernationalism, which places fascism on the extreme right, NS even further right, and communism far left. In the US spectrum, which basically runs from collectivist statism to individualist anti-statism, all three totalitarian ideologies are on the far left. (Anarcho-capitalism would be “far right” in the real US meaning of the word.)
Pournelle’s Chart has two axes: one that’s essentially the US left-right axis, and another that represents optimism vs. pessimism toward planned social progress. Here, Marxism with its belief in complete malleability of human nature would represent the extreme optimist position, and fascism and National Socialism especially National Socialism would be on opposite sides of the second axis.
But what in Kling’s “ternary phase diagram”? Marxism is almost paradigmatically “P”, but I would place fascism and NS near the “C-P” vertex — utterly distrusting in the wisdom of the market (i.e., anti-L) but, where the dream of communism is “year zero”, fascists and NS pay at least lip service to a “purer” past. Be mindful however that, contrary to received wisdom, dyed-in-the-wool traditionalist conservatives could be among the most implacable opponents of both fascism and NS — from Winston Churchill to the would-be assassins of Hitler [y”sh].
Spin, strangeness, and charm 