Political Spectrums

This week, I’m attempting to discuss politics without it becoming political.

Sometimes the discussion doesn’t have to be about whether you are right or someone else is wrong, whether you should vote for party 1 or party 2, or whether the two-party system or the multi-party system is best.

Personal Experiences in the UK:

Many years ago, when I lived in the UK, I was voting in one of my first general elections. A general election in the UK is when the public votes for Members of Parliament (MPs) to represent their local areas. The political party with the majority of MPs after the election typically forms the next government, The party themselves vote for their leader ahead of the election, so you know when voting for a local MP, that effectively you are voting for that leadser to be Prime Minister. Each party has a manifesto of their polcies and intentions and how they will solve the current socio, econimic issues.

At the time, there were three parties with a good chance of winning, along with a few smaller parties. I was fairly confident I knew which party I wanted to vote for, yet I had some doubts and was leaning slightly towards another party.

There’s a common notion in the UK:

“I’ll vote for ‘this’ party because…”

- My family has always voted for them.

- I’ve always voted for them.

- The other parties are junk.

- The other party(s) did something 40 years ago that negatively impacted me or my family, and I’m clearly not holding a grudge.

This really irritated me. An inherent bias—familiarity bias, familial bias, or simply not believing people can change.

Separately, in the UK, there is a notion of “political voting,” which is quite bizarre. This refers to the strategy of voting not necessarily for your first choice, but in a way that might prevent an undesired outcome, often due to the intricacies of the "First Past the Post" voting system.

That year, the BBC News website ran a fascinating piece. You went through a series of multiple questions, what felt like 40. They were deliberately detailed, like, “Do you believe prisons should receive more investment from the government?”

- Absolutely not; prisons are wrong.

- Yes, but only if the focus is on rehabilitation and reintegration.

- Yes, more prisons.

- Yes, higher standards of living in our prisons.

Each answer was essentially a reflection of one of the main parties' published policies. When you finished the “quiz,” the tool did two things: It told you which of the parties your answers most closely aligned with. This was eye-opening. Instead of bias and assumptions, you just landed on a "this party is more closely aligned with your views and beliefs." If memory serves, there was also a way to see where your preferred party stood on issues compared to yourself, really helping you challenge and see why your preferred party went against your belief.

Voting in the US:

Let’s swap countries to the US, and then “circle back” to bring it together.

Having lived here for almost 15 years, I’ve never been allowed to vote. This upcoming election (next year) will be the first time I can vote for a president. That’s okay; it’s a choice I made. I knew that coming in. I have many views and thoughts about a non-citizen living in a country and the rights they do and don’t have, and what’s fair and equitable. But that’s another article.

So, in the US, for all intents and purposes, it's a two-party system. People vote for one of two parties. My experience is that this leads to people being far less comfortable discussing which party they are voting for. People shy away from discussing politics as you essentially are either red or blue (not to be confused with Red vs. Blue).

This can cause conflict, and people often avoid that.

Yet, much of the same bias from the UK exists. People vote for their party because they always have, or because their family does. This is often more geographically split. The sheer size of the US and the difficulty of socio-economic migration—for people with lower incomes to move across the country—play a part.

When you vote in the US, you vote on propositions. These are specific questions or policies that citizens can directly vote on, unlike in the UK where most policies are decided by the elected officials. You also vote for local leaders, and then seperately you vote for one of the presidential candidates. (Let’s not delve into the electoral college.)

The Political Spectrum:

Might the political spectrum be a circle? Fascism is designed to promote the interests of power. It is authoritarian by design. Communism requires an authoritarian approach to stop it from being undermined by the bourgeoisie.

So both are authoritarian.

Communism is designed to promote the interests of the workforce. It socializes ownership of production to share proceeds with them.

Fascism requires state control of industry to prevent rival groups from obtaining sufficient power to challenge the elite.

To put it another way: the primary objectives of fascism and communism are opposite. But the primary objective of each is also the tool for achieving the primary objective of the other.

In other words, they are radically different in theory, but in practice, remarkably similar. Hitler and Stalin were peas in a pod.

During my quest to understand political ideologies better, I came across the Political Compass website. It offers an enlightening test that plots your political leanings on a spectrum, giving you a clearer picture of where you might stand in the global political landscape.Its not the same, but quite close to the founsdations of the BBC test I talked about earlier.

[https://www.politicalcompass.org/test]

It not only lets you plot yourself but it has pre plotttd many world leaders.

It’s here you realize how close the two US candidates are and how wildly far apart Bernie Sanders or AOC are. In the UK, all the primary parties sit on the top right but are quite spread out.

Since living in the US, people often told me that the Republicans are Conservatives and are most like the UK Conservative Party. They are both Conservatives. What’s in a name?

Looking at the charts, Donald Trump, the presumptuous presidential candidate and former president, sits very closely to UKIP or DUP. Both Biden and Clinton (Hillary) sit very close to the UK Conservative party.

So here’s a game: Take five minutes and see where you actually sit. I did. It’s surprising.

A New Proposal:

Here’s my proposal: Let’s take a combination of this test and the BBC one. Let’s find a way to assess how you, as an individual, feel about policies, things, issues, and where you stand.

Then apply that model to your logic. Instead of picking a party or a person, you answer questions based on your beliefs.

Then, instead of candidates campaigning “vote for me,” you are actually forced to either offer policies and views that serve public opinion or you are forced to educate and inform the public as to why your beliefs are in their and the country's interests.

Addressing the Other Side of the Coin:

While the ideas

presented here advocate for introspection and challenging our biases, some might argue in favor of the existing systems and beliefs. Let's briefly touch upon a few:

1. Stability Over Change: Some believe that the current voting system, with all its imperfections, provides a sense of stability. Rapid changes or drastic shifts in how we vote might lead to unforeseen complications. While stability is crucial, it's also essential to address systemic issues that might prevent true representation.

2. Simplicity of the Two-Party System: The two-party system, especially prevalent in the US, can be seen as a way to simplify choices and reduce political fragmentation. By having two major parties, voters have clearer choices, and the government might function more smoothly. However, this can also limit nuanced discussions and diverse representation in politics.

3. Biases are Natural: Some might argue that biases, familial or otherwise, are natural. They provide a sense of identity and belonging. While this is true, it's crucial to differentiate between healthy biases that form our identity and those that limit our understanding and growth.

Let's bring this to a close.

In a world filled with bias and preconceived notions about politics, it's more important than ever to challenge our perceptions and truly understand our core beliefs. Many times, we might find that what we think we stand for doesn't align with our actual convictions. By taking the time to introspect and using tools to gauge our true political leanings, we can not only make more informed decisions at the ballot box but also grow as individuals. After all, a thriving democracy is built on the foundation of informed, self-aware, and engaged citizens.

Follow me on LinkedIn?for more weekly thoughts, rants, and ideas.