Why is politics one dimensional? Many people say that this is the result of the two party system, forcing people into coalitions.
I believe it’s the other way round. People were dividing others to “us” and “them” long before political parties were invented.
I’d say that “us” and “them” is hardcoded in people. We also have a bias to imagine that all our enemies are in some sense the same (so there is only one “them”, instead of “them1“, “them2”, “them3”...) Most people are probably bad at imagining that more then two options are possible.
Also, there are often binary decisions to make: Someone proposes a new change of law in the parliament, do you vote “yes” or do you vote “no”?
If parties are coalitions, you might expect different coalitions in different countries. Correlations between factual beliefs might switch between countries. But I do not think this happens.
Sure it does. For example, in Slovakia, the only political party that supports legalization of marijuana and gay marriage is classified as right-wing (their political opponents love to say “extreme right-wing”), because they also happen to support free market. If I understand it correctly, in USA marijuana and gay marriage are generally considered left-wing issues.
We also have a bias to imagine that all our enemies are in some sense the same (so there is only one “them”, instead of “them1“, “them2”, “them3”...) Most people are probably bad at imagining that more then two options are possible.
Is that a falsifiable statement and do you have support for it?
By introspection this is false for me, but then I’m not “most people”. However by the same token I would be wary of sweeping generalisations about “most people”.
If someone told me “all my (political) enemies are the same, no significant difference between them”, I would probably consider that person pretty stupid.
Us vs Them would suggests two parties, not one-dimensional politics. If people are forced into coalitions, then the variation inside the coalitions should be orthogonal to the direction between the coalitions. But it seems to me that most of it is along the axis separating the parties. Maybe that’s an illusion because it is salient—who is a swing voter, who can negotiate with the other party, etc. Moreover, when I look at a European country, I see a bunch of parties strung out along a single axis. This seems less likely to be an illusion, though I have less experience with European politics. How is this driven by Us vs Them?
Slovakia has a small libertarian party. So does America. The Slovak party is larger, partly because small parties are viable in a proportional system, and maybe also for other reasons reflecting a difference between the populations. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the correlations between political positions are different between the two countries.
Moreover, the topic of the post is factual beliefs. Even if the structure of the coalitions causes people’s policy preferences, that is a weaker claim than that it causes their factual beliefs. Maybe free-market Americans join the Republican party and come to oppose gay marriage and drug legalization, whereas free-market Slovaks join a different party with different influence. But I rather doubt that positions on gay marriage are driven by factual beliefs. Drug legalization might be, but it is probably a minor belief, a higher-order correction, compared to the important beliefs that drive their free-market positions. What I said I don’t believe is that different coalitions drive the correlations between factual beliefs.
I said that when I look at a European country, I see a bunch of parties strung out along a left-right axis. But, actually, I guess I don’t see anything, I just hear people describing the parties that way. Say, a left party L, a center party, C, and a right party R, allowing LC and CR coalitions. But often, when I look closely, they do seem to have exotic platforms that shouldn’t rule out the LR coalition. For example, people were shocked by the British Liberal Democrats forming a coalition with the Tories, because “everyone knew” that they were a left party. (I guess everyone knew that because the Liberals and Social Democrats used to be left-wing, but somewhere along the way the Liberal positions because right-wing.) Similarly “everyone knows” that anti-immigrant parties are right-wing, and that it is completely impossible for them to form coalitions with left-wing parties, but most of them are single-issue parties with little opinion on anything else, certainly not a right-wing positions. (But they can’t form coalitions with anyone because they are anti-establishment.)
And, similarly, it is odd that the Slovak libertarian party is labeled “extreme right-wing” seeming to rule out the possibility of including it in a left coalition giving it control of civil liberties.
And, similarly, it is odd that the Slovak libertarian party is labeled “extreme right-wing” seeming to rule out the possibility of including it in a left coalition giving it control of civil liberties.
Well, in Slovakia “left-wing” means communists, so the civil liberties are a right-wing topic here. The current “left-wing” topic is how we need to hire hundreds of new policemen, to protect us from the immigrant hordes.
I think that the communists in the post-communist countries are psychologically an equivalent of the religious right in the countries that didn’t have communism. That’s another part of what makes speaking about “left” and “right” so confusing.
I believe it’s the other way round. People were dividing others to “us” and “them” long before political parties were invented.
I’d say that “us” and “them” is hardcoded in people. We also have a bias to imagine that all our enemies are in some sense the same (so there is only one “them”, instead of “them1“, “them2”, “them3”...) Most people are probably bad at imagining that more then two options are possible.
Also, there are often binary decisions to make: Someone proposes a new change of law in the parliament, do you vote “yes” or do you vote “no”?
Sure it does. For example, in Slovakia, the only political party that supports legalization of marijuana and gay marriage is classified as right-wing (their political opponents love to say “extreme right-wing”), because they also happen to support free market. If I understand it correctly, in USA marijuana and gay marriage are generally considered left-wing issues.
Is that a falsifiable statement and do you have support for it?
By introspection this is false for me, but then I’m not “most people”. However by the same token I would be wary of sweeping generalisations about “most people”.
If someone told me “all my (political) enemies are the same, no significant difference between them”, I would probably consider that person pretty stupid.
The technical term is out-group homogeneity.
Starting with all those people whose definition of “right-wing” is so wide that it includes even Bernie Sanders...
Us vs Them would suggests two parties, not one-dimensional politics. If people are forced into coalitions, then the variation inside the coalitions should be orthogonal to the direction between the coalitions. But it seems to me that most of it is along the axis separating the parties. Maybe that’s an illusion because it is salient—who is a swing voter, who can negotiate with the other party, etc. Moreover, when I look at a European country, I see a bunch of parties strung out along a single axis. This seems less likely to be an illusion, though I have less experience with European politics. How is this driven by Us vs Them?
Slovakia has a small libertarian party. So does America. The Slovak party is larger, partly because small parties are viable in a proportional system, and maybe also for other reasons reflecting a difference between the populations. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the correlations between political positions are different between the two countries.
Moreover, the topic of the post is factual beliefs. Even if the structure of the coalitions causes people’s policy preferences, that is a weaker claim than that it causes their factual beliefs. Maybe free-market Americans join the Republican party and come to oppose gay marriage and drug legalization, whereas free-market Slovaks join a different party with different influence. But I rather doubt that positions on gay marriage are driven by factual beliefs. Drug legalization might be, but it is probably a minor belief, a higher-order correction, compared to the important beliefs that drive their free-market positions. What I said I don’t believe is that different coalitions drive the correlations between factual beliefs.
I said that when I look at a European country, I see a bunch of parties strung out along a left-right axis. But, actually, I guess I don’t see anything, I just hear people describing the parties that way. Say, a left party L, a center party, C, and a right party R, allowing LC and CR coalitions. But often, when I look closely, they do seem to have exotic platforms that shouldn’t rule out the LR coalition. For example, people were shocked by the British Liberal Democrats forming a coalition with the Tories, because “everyone knew” that they were a left party. (I guess everyone knew that because the Liberals and Social Democrats used to be left-wing, but somewhere along the way the Liberal positions because right-wing.) Similarly “everyone knows” that anti-immigrant parties are right-wing, and that it is completely impossible for them to form coalitions with left-wing parties, but most of them are single-issue parties with little opinion on anything else, certainly not a right-wing positions. (But they can’t form coalitions with anyone because they are anti-establishment.)
And, similarly, it is odd that the Slovak libertarian party is labeled “extreme right-wing” seeming to rule out the possibility of including it in a left coalition giving it control of civil liberties.
Well, in Slovakia “left-wing” means communists, so the civil liberties are a right-wing topic here. The current “left-wing” topic is how we need to hire hundreds of new policemen, to protect us from the immigrant hordes.
I think that the communists in the post-communist countries are psychologically an equivalent of the religious right in the countries that didn’t have communism. That’s another part of what makes speaking about “left” and “right” so confusing.
I think the word you need is “statism”—the belief that strong central power is the best. It is shared by e.g. communists and fascists.
Thanks, I know the word, but 99+% people in my country still insist on using “left-wing”. Including the “left-wing” politicians.
Attaching labels is already a part of the political battle.
They are not wrong :-) The left wing tends to more statist than the right wing.