Nolan Chart inadequacy
Most libertarians will probably have encountered the Nolan Chart, a graphical representation of an idea published by Lillie and Maddox about how many voters fell into a category of social liberal and fiscal conservative that was not captured by either party. The Nolan Chart is frequently accompanied by a silly quiz; the real power of the chart is in breaking the idea that everyone should be separable into either Left or Right wing politics. While useful as an example, it fails to adequately capture the entire political realm.
The Left/Right split is a metaphor used to reinforce power. We talk in terms of "the political spectrum", we make out our electoral maps in two colors, arguments are presented as have two sides, and so on. It is ridiculous to think that all questions faced by humans can be divided down the center. Where did this come from?
During the French Revolution, the National Assembly sat in order of their affiliation, from the Jacobins to the left to the monarchists on the right. Left became associated with radical change, while Right became associated with protection of the Ancien Regime. After they got a little out of hand (note: this is understatement), Napoleon put an end to the Revolution and then proceeded to overthrow the Ancien Regimes throughout Europe. Unfortunately, he also sought to establish a new one and got himself thrown out of France for attempting to win a war.
Meanwhile, in Great Britain, the landed aristocracy, who favored agricultural protectionism and mercantilism, were dealing with the Industrial Revolution. The rising merchant class wanted to trade, which put the in conflict with the aristocracy. The Mercantilist question was ultimately put to rest by the Scottish Enlightenment (Hume and Smith), giving birth to the Anti-Corn Law League. The Corn Laws were struck down, and they managed to take a great deal of power away from the monarchy and aristocracy in the process.
At the same time, in America, the Colonists had just won independence, only to discover that they couldn't pay their bills under the Confederacy. They wrote the Constitution to set up a stronger central government, but in the process (and with the return of Jefferson from abroad) set up a struggle between the Federalists, led by Hamilton, and the Democrat-Republicans, led by Madison and Jefferson. The Federalists favored a strong central government so they could build good credit and use that to promote industry. The D-Rs favored a decentralized government as well as Jefferson's theories about a nation of "yeoman farmers".
The Civil War interrupted the period of prosperity that followed the creation of the new Republic. The war pitted the northern industrialists against the southern agrarians. Each side adopted the language of States' Rights and Central Government handed down from pro-industrial Hamilton and pro-agrarian Jefferson. However, the liberals, forced to recognize the divergence between liberal principles and decentralization and agrarianism, were cut adrift and never to return to the Jeffersonian fold.
In Europe and GB after Napoleon, there generally followed a long period of peace and prosperity in all three regions until approximately 1848. At that time, the Europeans threw out the last vestiges of the old regimes and began to reap the reward of greater general wealth from the Industrial Revolution. With this wealth came a realization that they could now afford to effect social change. Robert Owen, a Welsh industrialist, noted that he got better productivity out of happy and literate factory workers and embarked upon a lifelong quest to establish a utopia. He never succeeded, but did manage to coin the term "socialism". During this time in England, the Brits passed a series of labor laws, especially the Factory Acts. Marx and Engels published the Communist Manifesto in 1848.
In the prosperous period after the two continental upheavals, a period of nearly unrivaled scientific discovery produced profound changes in the way men perceived the world. From Pasteur to Darwin, human understanding of the world seemed to multiply by the minute; they believed that soon they would be able to understand everything in its minutest operation, and therefore to scientifically manage both nature and man. This zeitgeist, coupled with the social upheavals, brought about the idea that human existence could be centrally planned and managed to bring about the maximum amount of happiness for everyone.
In Europe, then, the radicals merged with the socialists to try to bring about this change. They still used the radical language of fighting against monarchy, aristocracy, and hierarchy in general, bringing this rhetoric to bear against capitalists. There was no real defense of capitalism outside the Manchester school, Bastiat, and (later) the Austrian School. The result was the creation of an entrenched bureaucracy that, while still wearing the rhetorical trappings of radicalism, has assumed the place of the aristocracy. Pro-labor protection measures on the continent, and to a lesser extent in GB, are the new Corn Laws.
In America, liberals were cut from their decentralized, agrarian roots and put in search of a new philosophy. Social activists wanted scientific management of social problems. Business interests wanted relief from the variety of state laws rising up to regulate transcontinental trade made possible by the telegraph and railroad. The resulting alliance was known as Progressivism. The activists served as the moral cover and retained the nominal title of "liberal" while the business interests wrote legislation that enabled cartelization and captured regulatory agencies.
These are impressions of a few of the currents active in these two continents over the past 250 years. There are obvious deficiencies in that story. Trying to describe those currents in a few paragraphs is like trying to describe the ocean; you can look at a micro level and miss the big picture, or look at the big picture and miss the eddies and subtle variations, but you can't do both. So below I present two graphical depictions of the events described above.
In the first, describing the Continental experience, you see how Left and Right are associated with change and entrenched interests, but over time the Left moves into entrenchment while the Right moves toward the position of change relative to the left, but have now returned back to a center position. (yes, Virginia, the nationalists, nazis, fascists, and other such movements really did want to change things) That is why Europe is currently experiencing stagnation.
In the second chart, we see the liberal and conservative interests start out under decentralization and centralization, respectively. After the Civil War, liberalism moves toward centralization. During the FDR era and afterwards, conservatism moves toward decentralization, but this movement saw its zenith with (pick one: Goldwater's campaign, the Sagebrush Rebellion, the "era of big government is over" speech).
There are other interesting descriptions of possible Nolan-like charts here and here, but I haven't thoroughly vetted them. I think you'll agree that the political world deserves more than a 1D depiction.
The Left/Right split is a metaphor used to reinforce power. We talk in terms of "the political spectrum", we make out our electoral maps in two colors, arguments are presented as have two sides, and so on. It is ridiculous to think that all questions faced by humans can be divided down the center. Where did this come from?
During the French Revolution, the National Assembly sat in order of their affiliation, from the Jacobins to the left to the monarchists on the right. Left became associated with radical change, while Right became associated with protection of the Ancien Regime. After they got a little out of hand (note: this is understatement), Napoleon put an end to the Revolution and then proceeded to overthrow the Ancien Regimes throughout Europe. Unfortunately, he also sought to establish a new one and got himself thrown out of France for attempting to win a war.
Meanwhile, in Great Britain, the landed aristocracy, who favored agricultural protectionism and mercantilism, were dealing with the Industrial Revolution. The rising merchant class wanted to trade, which put the in conflict with the aristocracy. The Mercantilist question was ultimately put to rest by the Scottish Enlightenment (Hume and Smith), giving birth to the Anti-Corn Law League. The Corn Laws were struck down, and they managed to take a great deal of power away from the monarchy and aristocracy in the process.
At the same time, in America, the Colonists had just won independence, only to discover that they couldn't pay their bills under the Confederacy. They wrote the Constitution to set up a stronger central government, but in the process (and with the return of Jefferson from abroad) set up a struggle between the Federalists, led by Hamilton, and the Democrat-Republicans, led by Madison and Jefferson. The Federalists favored a strong central government so they could build good credit and use that to promote industry. The D-Rs favored a decentralized government as well as Jefferson's theories about a nation of "yeoman farmers".
The Civil War interrupted the period of prosperity that followed the creation of the new Republic. The war pitted the northern industrialists against the southern agrarians. Each side adopted the language of States' Rights and Central Government handed down from pro-industrial Hamilton and pro-agrarian Jefferson. However, the liberals, forced to recognize the divergence between liberal principles and decentralization and agrarianism, were cut adrift and never to return to the Jeffersonian fold.
In Europe and GB after Napoleon, there generally followed a long period of peace and prosperity in all three regions until approximately 1848. At that time, the Europeans threw out the last vestiges of the old regimes and began to reap the reward of greater general wealth from the Industrial Revolution. With this wealth came a realization that they could now afford to effect social change. Robert Owen, a Welsh industrialist, noted that he got better productivity out of happy and literate factory workers and embarked upon a lifelong quest to establish a utopia. He never succeeded, but did manage to coin the term "socialism". During this time in England, the Brits passed a series of labor laws, especially the Factory Acts. Marx and Engels published the Communist Manifesto in 1848.
In the prosperous period after the two continental upheavals, a period of nearly unrivaled scientific discovery produced profound changes in the way men perceived the world. From Pasteur to Darwin, human understanding of the world seemed to multiply by the minute; they believed that soon they would be able to understand everything in its minutest operation, and therefore to scientifically manage both nature and man. This zeitgeist, coupled with the social upheavals, brought about the idea that human existence could be centrally planned and managed to bring about the maximum amount of happiness for everyone.
In Europe, then, the radicals merged with the socialists to try to bring about this change. They still used the radical language of fighting against monarchy, aristocracy, and hierarchy in general, bringing this rhetoric to bear against capitalists. There was no real defense of capitalism outside the Manchester school, Bastiat, and (later) the Austrian School. The result was the creation of an entrenched bureaucracy that, while still wearing the rhetorical trappings of radicalism, has assumed the place of the aristocracy. Pro-labor protection measures on the continent, and to a lesser extent in GB, are the new Corn Laws.
In America, liberals were cut from their decentralized, agrarian roots and put in search of a new philosophy. Social activists wanted scientific management of social problems. Business interests wanted relief from the variety of state laws rising up to regulate transcontinental trade made possible by the telegraph and railroad. The resulting alliance was known as Progressivism. The activists served as the moral cover and retained the nominal title of "liberal" while the business interests wrote legislation that enabled cartelization and captured regulatory agencies.
These are impressions of a few of the currents active in these two continents over the past 250 years. There are obvious deficiencies in that story. Trying to describe those currents in a few paragraphs is like trying to describe the ocean; you can look at a micro level and miss the big picture, or look at the big picture and miss the eddies and subtle variations, but you can't do both. So below I present two graphical depictions of the events described above.
In the first, describing the Continental experience, you see how Left and Right are associated with change and entrenched interests, but over time the Left moves into entrenchment while the Right moves toward the position of change relative to the left, but have now returned back to a center position. (yes, Virginia, the nationalists, nazis, fascists, and other such movements really did want to change things) That is why Europe is currently experiencing stagnation.
In the second chart, we see the liberal and conservative interests start out under decentralization and centralization, respectively. After the Civil War, liberalism moves toward centralization. During the FDR era and afterwards, conservatism moves toward decentralization, but this movement saw its zenith with (pick one: Goldwater's campaign, the Sagebrush Rebellion, the "era of big government is over" speech).
There are other interesting descriptions of possible Nolan-like charts here and here, but I haven't thoroughly vetted them. I think you'll agree that the political world deserves more than a 1D depiction.
Labels: philosophy
<< Home