Left Right Classification

I see that there is some confusion out there about which movements belong to the left, and which to the right. (Amritas complains about it here, Scott, in my comments here.) Of course, the problem is that people, ideas, and movements are not one-dimensional. However, for the sake of clarity, at least regarding two of the infinite number of possible dimensions, I would like to propose the following:

	Internationalist
Socialist	Left-wing Libertarian Fascist Right-wing	Individualist
	Nationalist

UPDATE: I have been asked to define the difference between Socialist and Nationalist. (Doing so should also define their opposites.) A nationalist wants to use government power to advance national goals, e.g. defense. A socialist wants to use government power to advance social goals, e.g. education. (I have purposely chosen relatively uncontroversial examples, though a pure libertarian would advocate against both.)

UPDATE: By this definition the USSR could be defined as Fascist, though its rhetoric was Left-wing. In practice, Fascist states were only slightly less socialist than Communist states, while Communist states were only slightly less nationalist than Fascist states.

The role-reversal of Democrats and Republicans

I have long wondered at the role-reversal of Democrats and Republicans in recent years. It used to be Democrats who wanted to aggressively pursue liberty around the world, now it’s Republicans. It used to be Democrats who advocated low tariffs, now it’s Republicans. It used to be Democrats who were the party of the common man, now it’s Republicans.

Conversely, it used to be Republicans who advocated government support for big business, now it’s Democrats. It used to be Republicans who advocated isolationism, now it’s Democrats. It used to be Republicans who were the party of the elite, now it’s Democrats.

Of course the picture is more complex than this, there are positions that haven’t changed. There are individuals in both parties who don’t fit the party stereotype. Part of the answer has to do with changing conventional wisdom. But I’ve been thinking of something else – I’m not sure of it myself, and I’m interested in your feedback.

I’ve been thinking the following: The real issue dividing the two parties is stasis vs. ferment.

In a two-party democratic system, electoral politics pushes the parties inexorably into dividing the public into two 50-50 camps. The issue that has always been the basis of this division is whether or not to risk change, or whether to strive to keep things the same. In this battle, the party of ferment always has the advantage – though people do make mistakes, human intelligence combined with the results of trial-and-error tends to lead to improvements. Perhaps more importantly, society’s most energetic and industrious people are naturally attracted to the party of ferment.

So who is attracted to the party of stasis? On the one hand, the children of the elite – children of successful entrepreneurs, self-made academics, etc. – people who are born to success under the existing system. On the other hand, people who are unsuccessful, but for one reason or another don’t want to strive for success.

So how does this explain the Democratic/Republican flip-flops? Because the single biggest factor in determining party affiliation is the party affiliation of your parents. So my postulate is that the children don’t change parties, the parties change to suit the children.

Since 1861, when Abraham Lincoln became the first Republican president, the parties have changed places twice. The Republicans started as a party of ferment and subsequently dominated the presidency. Gradually they became a party of stasis and lost their dominance. The tipping point was reached around 1930 with FDR, when the Democrats clearly became the party of ferment. But by the 1970s, the Democrats had become the party of stasis once again. For a while, there were two competing stasis parties, and then came Ronald Reagan. Now the Republicans are once again the party of ferment.

You may notice that both parties were dominant for about two generations – one of ferment, one of stasis.

Moderate Islam

David Frum posts about Islam. It ends thus:

You often hear people say that the Islamic world needs a “Reformation.” Alas, in many ways, Islamic extremism is the Muslim “Reformation.” Al Qaeda and its ideological supporters are rejecting a thousand years of interpretation - interpretation that has tended to soften the often harsh Koranic text - to return to the bald words of Islamic scripture.

He also links to Iraqi blogger Zeyad, who ends his post thus:

I can go on and on, but I would rather not. I have intensively examined the Quran and Sunna, and I might have a few things that would scare some pious believers. Maybe, some other time, when I'm in a safer environment, I would devote a website or a book to the subject.

And that is the problem with Islam today. I think it’s ridiculous when non-Moslems proclaim the morality or moderation of Islam. Unfortunately, I’m not hearing it from Moslems themselves.

Islamist Ghost Dancers

Are Islamists the Ghost Dancers of the 21st century?

All hope of defeating the United States militarily was gone, grinding poverty was endemic, and assimilation was the policy of the U. S. government. The arrival of railroads brought waves of settlers into former Indian lands. Wovoka’s message of a new golden age was therefore received with great enthusiasm, and it spread quickly among the tribes of the Great Basin and the Great Plains. Many tribes sent delegates to visit Wovoka, hear his message, and receive instructions for the dance. Throughout the year 1890 the Ghost Dance was performed, stimulating anticipation of a return of the old ways.

The Plains Indians added a new twist to the Ghost Dance message, a belief that the great changes at hand would include the eradication of whites, or at least their being driven away from Indian lands. Some, especially the Lakota, went farther yet, creating in mid-1890 “ghost shirts” and “ghost dresses,” special garments that were believed to be bulletproof–indeed, impenetrable by any kind of weapon. The shirts were decorated with symbols of religious significance–sun, moon, stars–and often adorned with eagle feathers.