Click here if you are using Microsoft's
defective Windows Explorer browser. Why?
Posted August 5, 2002
David Nolan may not have been the first to draw a two-dimensional political spectrum, but thanks to his friends in the Libertarian Party and the Advocates for Self-Government, his name often attaches to it:
We've all seen it drawn in ways similar to the above. I've adapted this version from Kelley L. Ross, one of the many people to attempt a three-dimensional political spectrum.
Now, to those who've never thought about how limiting the left-right spectrum can be, or who have just seen the intellectual beauty involved in concocting a two-dimensional representation of the spectrum, the Nolan chart often comes as a revelation.
But to those who have contemplated the problem for any length of time, perhaps trying to cram a wide variety of political thinkers onto this two-dimensional chart, the virtues of a third-dimensional expansion become quickly evident.
I'm not going to essay yet another. At least, not now.
Instead, allow me a quibble. Why are the words "populist" and "authoritarian" the usual opposites of "libertarian" on these charts? Consider Dr. Ross's:
Dr. Ross follows a host of others in placing the words "authoritarian" and "populist" at the end opposite "libertarian." I don't believe I've ever seen such a chart with the word "totalitarian" in their place. (Which is why I redrew Dr. Ross's chart.)
But why not use the word "totalitarian"? Populism means almost nothing, if for no other reason than that it has meant so many radically different things. And authoritarianism is as much a style of politics as a substantive doctrine -- some of the most respected and deferred-to authorities are those that limit their reach.
Yes, I know. My dictionary comes close to supporting the Nolan chart's antipode to libertarianism, authoritarian:
adj. (1) favoring, encouraging, or enforcing strict obedience to authority, as opposed to individual freedom. (2) tyrannical or domineering.
n. a person favoring absolute obedience to a constituted authority.
The trouble, here, is that obedience to authority and individual freedom are not in strict opposition. Consider: if liberty were the law of the land, the law of equal liberty would authorize all sorts of judges, police, bailiffs, et al., and these people would be the authorities. And so libertarians themselves would encourage strict obedience to constituted authority!
This point was made incessently, and somewhat indecently, by the "paleo-libertarians" of a few years' back. And to a limited extent they were right. (The extent to which they were wrong, however, deserves keeping in mind.) I suggest we avoid the term "authoritarian" for the reasons they gave, and for a few others, too. (No, I won't list them all.)
To return to my point, the true opposite of libertarianism is totalitarianism:
adj. of or relating to a centralized dictatorial form of government requiring complete subservience to the State.
n. a person advocating such a system.
This was an apt recent coinage, required by the awesome development of the Total State in the 20th century. The rise of a comprehensive bureaucratic state with an acute interest in seeing every aspect of human life go according to a plan -- or at least a series of jerry-rigged plans -- coincided with the growth of totalist ideologies that demanded "improvements" of every element of life, and with moony eyes saw in politics the solution to every perceived social problem. Totalitarianism is a living element of many political isms, an extreme that many people lurch towards.
The totalitarian impulse is at least as strong in the human soul as the drive for freedom. It may be stronger. And it crops up in the strangest places. For instance, when the Supreme Court decided that every productive activity could fall under the "commerce clause" of the Constitution, it gave near-totalitarian powers to the government. It certainly destroyed a limit set by America's founders. And since that time, this clause of the Constitution has been a bulwark of anti-libertarian aspects of America's mixed-bag economy.
So, why do libertarians who fondly promote Nolan charts and political quizzes rely so heavily on the designations "authoritarian" and "populist"? Surely "totalitarian" best indicates the opposite of libertarian ideology.
Perhaps they see a political problem here. Almost no one 'fesses up to a full-blown totalitarianism any more, no matter how totalistic their ideas may be. Totalitarianism is "extremist." And, therefore, libertarianism would seem "extremist" too. Populism and authoritarianism sound a little more mainstream, so libertarianism, by juxtaposition, takes on a little of the color of that main (if muddy) stream.
Illusion! On the political spectrum, libertarianism is an extremism. If you want to convince people that liberty is a reasonable compromise among competing social strategies (as surely it is), then you have to break out of yet another narrowing vision, the perspective of institutional politics.
 |
Click here for this site's general fair-use permissions statement. |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|