The Orbital Model of Political Philosophies and the Myth of Right and Left (by ContraSuggest)

For centuries, students and laypeople alike, have been led by pundits and educators to envision a deeply flawed model in an attempt to explain the various political philosophies of the world.

This model, characterized by false dichotomies of "left" and "right", has been used by the intelligencia to glorify politicians, and others of public notoriety, that they define as “moderates”, those who fall in the middle of their counterfeit spectrum.  But before we go further into explaining the falsehoods of the linear model evoked by the terms left and right, first a brief word on how these terms came into use.   

During the bloody French revolutionary period in the late 1780s, the terms left and right, originally used as pejoratives, referred to those who supported the radical principles of the revolution, who sat to the left of the speaker's podium in the National Assembly chamber, and those who were skeptical of those principles, who sat to the right.  Although no longer referring to the relative seating arrangements in legislative chambers, the descriptive terms caught on, and have been used in the media and the halls of academia ever since.  As will be explained shortly, these distinctions, as they have long been applied, are almost completely fallacious. 

Let’s begin with a depiction of the false linear spectrum described above (see figure 1).  It must be noted that, although this linear representation is fundamentally unsound, I have made an honest attempt to accurately position political ideologies and forms of government in terms of where the model's advocates have traditionally placed them.  As with all models, relative placement is approximate.  This will make for a sharper comparison, when I unveil what I believe to be my alternative, far more accurate model.

Relative positioning along the continuum is based upon the subjects' perceived resemblance to either “far-left” or “far-right” ideology.  If an expressed view or policy (stated or implemented) resembles what is perceived as fascist, it is placed closer to the extreme right side of the spectrum; if perceived as being consistent with communism, it will be closer to the extreme left.  The main justification for desiring moderation is the belief that tending too far to either extreme is equally deleterious to liberty.  But this presumes an invalid premise by drawing false distinctions between tyrannical ideologies, in some cases placing them at opposite ends of  the spectrum, when in reality they belong near one another, due to their manifold similarities and only superficial differences.   

The distortions offered by the political experts do not end there.  For while they caution us to avoid so-called extremism "on both sides", they simultaneously lionize those on the left (those with whom they share political kinship), and demonize those on the right.  This is done by positioning anyone who is not a leftist on the extreme right; placing liberals toward the center, and casting a nebulous shadow over the left end of the spectrum. The result?  It has become the height of intellectual and political sophistication to be characterized as a moderate.

One of the convenient results for the leftist, or statist, in furthering this perception, is the easy ability to marginalize or demonize any conservative or even conservative-leaning individual as a fascist.  So, the GOP is recast as the party of segregation, Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump are akin to Adolf Hitler, the radical chic of the revolutionary murderer Che Guevara is celebrated, the USSR is portrayed as an honest broker during Cold War nuclear arms talks, and America's pullout in Vietnam, precipitating the worst mass slaughter of the second half of the 20th century, is hailed as a triumph of liberty.       

However, in truth, Communism, Socialism, Nazism, Fascism, and Liberalism/Progressivism (from here on referred to as the "six isms") are socio-economic and political cousins that must be depicted in close proximity when placed on any ideological spectrum.  This fact throws the entire perceived balance of the linear model out of whack.  The six isms are, to varying degrees, all tyrannical, totalitarian, extremist ideologies of what is perceived to be the left.  That means that they have no opposite but equal dark reflection on the far "right."  There are simply no more “isms” remaining to juxtapose with the six listed on the so-called left.  Can conservatism be the opposite number of the six isms?  Most certainly not- for conservatism is not a political ideology; it is a way of life: life lived by the acknowledgment of the natural law, and the teleological; exercise of reason, prudence, faith, objective morality, and ethics.  Individual conservatives can, and often do, get it wrong, but only when they violate the core conservative principles.  Conservatism itself is unimpeachable.

Perhaps one could suggest capitalism as their opposite number, but this would propose that capitalism is equally flawed (or extreme) in its “rightist” precepts as the other isms are in their “leftist” precepts.  This notion turns to dust under closer scrutiny, for the societies in all of world history that have had the highest success rate of lifting people out of crippling poverty, are systems that incorporate capitalism.  Its critics often confuse it with what is called crony capitalism (itself a misnomer); failures attributed to capitalism are most often the negative result of infusions of socialism into the mix.  And wherever the precepts of the six isms have been applied, characterized by varying degrees of centralized government control over citizens' lives, they have failed.  To varying degrees, these systems and their champions have been responsible for the full gamut of human stagnation and suffering-  from violations of  basic freedoms and poor economic growth-  to torture, unjust imprisonment, mass starvation, great depressions, collapsed economies, and mass murder.  In the 20th century, collectivist ideologies (the six isms) have been responsible for the deaths of well over 150 million people.  This of course doesn't mean, for example, that American liberals are responsible for Stalin-magnitude crimes at home; there is no false conflation of the six isms.  However, from a theoretical standpoint, American liberalism and Soviet communism are ideological cousins.  They often acknowledge  similar premises and share similar stated goals, but differ regarding approach and implementation.  A prime historical illustration is the many American liberals who engaged in dark Cold War accommodationism of the treasonous, anti-American Communist Party (CPUSA), and therefore of the totalitarian Soviet Union itself; while at the same time some liberals, like Presidents Truman and Kennedy, did all they could to check Soviet expansion. 

So, in reality, the entire right side of the linear model is essentially an empty set, with the six isms constellated on the left, and no opposite number on the right.  The much laudable center of the linear model must be represented by something other than a hazy and ever-changing Golden Mean (aka- disguised statism).  The only remaining thing that could possibly populate the moderate center would be conservatism; but again, a linear model, built on falsely juxtaposed negative extremes cannot accurately place conservatism.  With the model now in full collapse, it must be discarded and replaced with a more reasonable, accurate and workable model.         

The New Orbital Model:         

In light of the inaccuracy of the traditional conceptions that evoke a false linear political model, I propose here an entirely new model, using an orbital diagram, similar to that of Earth’s solar system, as a general template (see Figure 2.).

The center of the diagram, where the sun would normally be positioned, represents the positive extremes to which all reasonable people aspire.  This is represented by the natural law (defined as man's participation in the divine law), prudence, faith, reason, objective morality and ethics, just-law, orthodoxy, time-tested tradition, freedom, and liberty.  The diagram is both elegant and accurate in its simplicity: the closer a subject is to the "sun", the more it embraces and emulates truth; the farther from the sun, the less it emulates truth.  Therefore, one can easily judge the relative merit of a subject based upon its proximity to the true center.  The noble effort of the American founders, distilling the best time-tested institutions of the great world societies of the past, and fusing them with select Enlightenment philosophy, tempered by Judeo-Christian principles, are in the first orbit, depicted closest to the light of truth.  In stark contrast, the six isms orbit in frozen depravity at the farthest reaches of the model, to depict their retrograde values and the evil they have wrought in the world.  Other notable political movements are placed in various orbits to indicate their status relative to the positive extreme around which they orbit.

The Orbital Model may be simple, but it's also dynamic enough to accurately represent so-called mixed ideologies.  Individuals, ideologies, or regimes that have drawn from varied political philosophies to either explain their beliefs or to govern, leaning "left" in some regards and "right" in others.  Such cases are easily and accurately represented by an elliptical orbit.  For illustrative purposes, figure 3., depicts those who label themselves both fiscally conservative (traditionally defined as a right-leaning view) and socially liberal (traditionally defined as a left-leaning view).  An elliptical orbit allows closer proximity to truth when the subject expresses fiscally responsible views, while the same subject can be depicted  farther away from truth when expressing irresponsible and destructive social views, all in the course of the same orbit.

Misunderstanding political philosophies allows easy mischaracterization of the intentions and actions of historical and present-day administrations and regimes, theoreticians, politicians, and heads of state, adding additional further misunderstanding to the already muddled views of the public.  Due to the fatal flaws of the traditional linear inspired depictions, I urge educators, pundits, and everyday citizens to seriously consider the use of the far more accurate and dynamic Orbital Model.