Comment The 4-Corner Theory of American Politics (Score 1) 2549
For this whole election cycle we've been subjected to endless punditry to the effect that the US is split almost 50/50 between two diametrically opposed viewpoints. The classic Liberal/Left and the Conservative/Right.
But is it really so? I think not.
A more useful analogy is what I have dubbed the "4-Corner" model. Basically it boils down to spliting the social and fiscal elements into separate axis so you have:
Social Liberal Social Conservative
Fiscal Liberal Fiscal Liberal
Social Liberal Social Conservative
Fiscal Conservative Fiscal Conservative
From all the political discussion, one would think that everyone falls either into the upper left or lower right corners with a mass in the middle called "Moderates".
This is not so.
Most of the so called "Moderates" are strongly in either the lower left or upper right corners. Most Slashdotters would likely be in the lower left corner. There are very few people who are "in the middle".
The problem is that there are no political parties that represent two of the corners, so those individuals must choose "the lesser of two evils" in seemingly every political contest. The great irony here are the Democrat and Republican who are currently at each others throats when they in fact may have almost identical politics, but one leaned slightly to fiscal issues this time and the other leaned slightly to the social. They see each other under the bipolar system as being opposed when they are probably each further away from other members of their own party than each other!
Why should things stay this way? If a party emerged to take the lower left corner, it would likely spark the emergence of a party representing the upper right corner. I fear there would be a greater number of people in the upper right making all policy go against my own personal choice (lower left). Therefore my best strategy is to play the two current bipolar parties against each other, getting whichever party is in power to concentrate on advancing the half of their agenda with which I agree, and to make their inevitable compromises on the other half.
But is it really so? I think not.
A more useful analogy is what I have dubbed the "4-Corner" model. Basically it boils down to spliting the social and fiscal elements into separate axis so you have:
Social Liberal Social Conservative
Fiscal Liberal Fiscal Liberal
Social Liberal Social Conservative
Fiscal Conservative Fiscal Conservative
From all the political discussion, one would think that everyone falls either into the upper left or lower right corners with a mass in the middle called "Moderates".
This is not so.
Most of the so called "Moderates" are strongly in either the lower left or upper right corners. Most Slashdotters would likely be in the lower left corner. There are very few people who are "in the middle".
The problem is that there are no political parties that represent two of the corners, so those individuals must choose "the lesser of two evils" in seemingly every political contest. The great irony here are the Democrat and Republican who are currently at each others throats when they in fact may have almost identical politics, but one leaned slightly to fiscal issues this time and the other leaned slightly to the social. They see each other under the bipolar system as being opposed when they are probably each further away from other members of their own party than each other!
Why should things stay this way? If a party emerged to take the lower left corner, it would likely spark the emergence of a party representing the upper right corner. I fear there would be a greater number of people in the upper right making all policy go against my own personal choice (lower left). Therefore my best strategy is to play the two current bipolar parties against each other, getting whichever party is in power to concentrate on advancing the half of their agenda with which I agree, and to make their inevitable compromises on the other half.
