If you’re reading this, you will probably not be surprised to hear that I listen to a lot of political podcasts. Politics is complicated, if it weren’t finding solutions to our various debates would be a lot easier. Despite this obvious truism, political analysts, politicians, the press, activists, and citizens in general tend to simplify politics to a two-dimensional debate looking something like this:
Left-----------Center-----------Right
When looking at the US 2 party system this works fairly well. Even in Canada where there are 3 or 4 major parties (depending on where you stand with respect to the Bloc Quebecois) the model works fairly well. However, when libertarians, progressives, communists, etc. are thrown into the mix it quickly falls apart. This is why I’m partial to a slightly more complicated model.
There are numerous means by which political scientists attempt to place people and political parties on a political spectrum. It is beyond my abilities and patience to innumerate all of them. For the purposes of a discussion on the “art of the possible” it is sufficient to use a two-axis political compass. The one below consists of a horizontal economic axis and a vertical axis showing government authority/power. The horizontal axis could vary depending on what one wishes to measure, for example how socially liberal/conservative one is for example.
There is a second problem that is rarely addressed in political discussions and that is who we are able to cooperate or reach an agreement with. Despite what you may have heard, we can’t all get along. It may seem strange that as a citizen of a liberal democracy I’m making that claim but here we are. To be clear, most of us can, but some of us are too far outside the norms of what defines current liberal democracies to make political compromise possible. An examination of current debates regarding crime and punishment can illustrate this point. While center-left and center-right agree on the principal that some criminals must be removed from the general population, they may argue around the margins with respect to rehabilitation and sentence length. Progressives on the other hand argue for radical change in the form of prison abolishment. These two (three?) sides therefore cannot compromise to reach an amicable solution. A similar situation exists with respect to the authoritarian/libertarian y-axis. People whose opinions lie close to the origin – the point where the x and y-axis meet – may differ slightly on how much government control is necessary to, say collect taxes, but they exist in a radically different world to that of extreme libertarians who would do away with the IRS and make taxes voluntary or communists who are for state control of the means of production (they’ll say “the proletariat” not “the state” but for some reason it never works out this way). If we define politics as the art of the possible, then those who can participate in the political process do not fall within this circle:
But what about this circle?
This appears more promising. It excludes the extremes represented by the corners and if I stand at the origin and look around – metaphorically speaking - I may feel that I can reach some form of an accommodation with anyone sitting on the outer edge of the circle. One may be inclined to think that we have found our circle of workable politics. However, what if I reside on the edge of the circle itself? Can I look all the way across the diameter of the circle and reach an agreement with that person? An optimist might think the answer is yes, but that would mean that far-left and far-right can come to some agreement. This seems unlikely to say the least. The conclusion then is the circle must be smaller.
If we were to use a circle roughly encompassing the coalition of the democratic party, it might look like this:
Does this work? We’re getting closer but I still don’t think so. Hail back to my first example, crime and punishment. Can an individual who advocates for prison abolishment or defunding the police reach a compromise with someone who feels the police and prisons are necessary but that sentences need to be lighter and rehabilitation the focus rather than punishment? It seems unlikely and a failure of this size circle would help explain why there is an internal battle in the Democratic party pitting the center-left against the progressive wing. Does this failure though demand that the circle shrink? It is clearly too large where it sits, but what if we move it towards the center, so it looks like this?
We have now created a situation in which people in the circle are arguing about degrees of change rather than advocating for radical change. Compromise once again seems possible. The obvious conclusion therefore is that the circle of political compromise shrinks as it moves to the extremes whether that be left and right or up and down resulting in a Democratic circle looking something like this (the Republican circle would be the mirror image along the y-axis):
The exact size of the circle is open for debate, but it would shrink as it moved to the left.
What we have determined is important for what it implies about political strategy and productive debate.
Political Strategy
In 2021 progressives made up approximately 6% of the general population and only 12% of those who intended to vote Democratic. A political strategy promoting progressive approaches to the country’s problems would consequently result in a very small circle. Democratic Party fortunes would therefore rest not on the votes of those who agree with progressive policies but rather on those who view the Republican policies as even more distasteful. However, for every person on the left who would “hold their nose” and vote for the party, there would likely be a number that would be alienated entirely from the political process and not vote at all (and a similar situation exists on the right). It seems that a less dangerous and more rational strategy would be to move to the center. This move, by either US political party, would increase the size of the party’s political circle thereby increasing the number of people willing to vote for them and increasing their chances of winning elections.
Who can I talk to?
The short answer is, well, anyone you like. However, if you wish the conversation to be amicable, if not productive, then it’s likely best to stay within your circle. At least politically. This is advice which is difficult to follow as no one wears a badge outlining their political positions. It is however possible to determine where you lie on the political compass. I took the test recently and found that I’d shifted a little to the right since I’d last taken the test.
It does not surprise me at all to find that I am unlikely to engage in productive political debate with progressives (top left quadrant) but most likely could find (some) common ground with left leaning libertarians and some of those on the right who advocate for slightly more government involvement.
The political compass has its flaws. Labeling anyone above the horizontal line as an “authoritarian” seems extreme. My “political circle” model of the art of the possible is also limited. The addition of other parties into the mix would complicate matters depending on where the individual parties lie on the x and y-axis. For example, the fact that both the Liberals and NDP in Canada reside on the left complicates shifts by both. Any move left or right by either party would necessarily impact one or both of their fortunes (and the sizes of their political circles). That said, I feel that both models strike a balance between too simple and too complex and provide some additional insight into why political compromise is so difficult.
Many today highlight the gulf that appears to exist between the left and the right and this may in fact be true, but I, like Reagan see the rise of authoritarianism, on the both the left and the right as the greater danger. As an example, President Ronald Reagan once famously said:
“There is no left or right. There's only an up or down. Up to the ultimate in individual freedom, man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with an orderly society -- or down to the totalitarianism of the ant heap. And those today who, however good their intentions, tell us that we should trade freedom for security are on that downward path.”
There is an insight, a wisdom here. While people on the left and right may argue over economics, social norms, education, and the like, they also argue over how to implement their ideologies. Reagan’s point, if I may speak for the Gipper, was that trading away personal freedom to enable the government to implement your beliefs is a road to totalitarianism. It also puts greater power into the hands of your opponents that you may live to regret.
The left-right debate was quite possible when gov't was held to its proper size and place, and would produce good solutions to many political questions. But when government became the omnipotent, omnipresent bloated behemoth that is devouring every good thing that lies in its path, that circle was not only off the square, it is off the page.
It is one thing to debate the minutia of the wording or even intent of law, it is entirely another to debate whether the government should do any one of the thousands of egregious and blatantly unconstitutional things that have been done to its citizens over the past 40-50 years.