[Psudo]

I've long had my mind resolved as to what ideological groups combined to form the American right-wing. It's a bit like trying to recognize the dozen or so unofficial political parties that make up the two official ones in US politics. It was fairly easy for me to analyze the right-wing in this way, having been right-wing in my views since I could form and express views and having talked with great diversities of people that usually generally agreed with me (that is, they were right-wing, too). I know what points to bring up to make right-wingers disagree with each other and what points to bring up to unite them.

I have nothing like that kind of insight into the left-wing of American politics. I know a little about the libertarian left and various views frequently agreed upon by diverse groups of left-wingers. I don't know, though, how to tell one left-wing ideology from another. So I'm reading up.

In my research, I bumped into this article that compares and contrasts two different "progressive" ideologies, both of which are distinguished from "conventional" liberalism by the author. He actually compares "radical progressivism" to radical conservativism, though this might imagined by the author's stated bias against both.

His definition of "rational progressivism" extols the virtues of human reason, scientific and technological progress, and empiric evidence is the road to provably correct answers to many of the problems of politics. This view, it is argued, produces the best government by ever improving the existing system step by step. I think of Zipperfish as an example.

The second group he names "radical progressivism". It is the union/workers/Marxist concept that capitalism and the political system generally cannot be repaired but must be replaced. It finds the elite to be corrupt and the common man (especially workers) to be virtuous. It seeks to win political debate by an endurance of will rather than an unanswerable argument. I'm inclined to associate this ideology with the Green Party platform from the 2008 election cycle.

Including these two schools of thought, the "conventional liberalism" against which they are both contrasted (presumably followers of Locke and Hobbes who believe in economic regulation more often than social), and the left-leaning libertarians that Kjorteo has brought me to respect, I now recognize four schools of left-wing thought.

This analysis is, however, much weaker than my analysis of the right-wing. While I was analyzing the right-wing, I was able to roughly define "the right-wing" as an inclusive movement, then systematically account for nearly all individual perspectives in a short list of unique, exclusive movements (seven in all). In this analysis of the left-wing, "conventional liberal" sounds too much like "everyone else", not a rigidly defined group of people. Further, I can't understand what issue stances are most likely in each left-wing group, as I am able with the right-wing groups.

So I'm asking for any help I can get. If you consider yourself left-wing but the group descriptions don't match your views, please speak up and describe your ideology. If you think I've made a mistake with my existing categories, please voice your criticisms. I think this information is important and meaningful for any voter residing in the same political system.

[Mustang1]

Firstly, Liberals (the ideological variant, not someone's personal lexicon) can be characterized by the central themes of the primacy of the individual. These would include, the individual, freedom, reason, justice and toleration and diversity. Where liberalism can truly become more complex is in the 20/21st century incarnation - this varies depending upon context (culturally, regionally and nationally) but it can include: individuality, positive freedom, social liberalism and economic management. Furthermore, this can differ greatly from classical liberalism. It's not the LEFT insomuch as it's relative to the right of the spectrum. Socialism is Left whereas many political scientists place liberalism (in its basic form) as moderate or centrist (with philosophical extremes sometimes presenting themselves)

In terms of conservatism (which some even argue isn't a well defined ideology) it isn't an inclusive movement insomuch as its a reactionary ideology. Its very birth - in the 18th century - was a reaction against something - in this case, the French Revolution as Burke objected to the growing pace of political, social and economic change. Conservatism, like Liberalism and Socialism, varies greatly depending upon its culture or nationality. A Canadian Conservative isn't necessary the same as an American nor do they express themselves legislatively in a similar fashion. If you had to present central themes that help construct a base, tradition, human imperfection, organic society, hierarchy and authority and property seem the most significant. Different offshoots of the philosophy include authoritarian conservatism, paternalistic conservatism and libertarian conservatism (and that doesn't include Neoconservatism or New Right movements)

In essence group descriptions may not be entirely accurate (with exceptions, variations) but they're needed for classification (as are historical examples).

[Psudo]

I can always depend on you, Mustang1, for a historically accurate analysis.

In a sense, your comments don't help me because they're too accurate: you're describing how to classify philosophies in an evolutionary context, movements that rise, influence, and synthesize with others. I am instead looking for political classifications by which American voters can be sorted according to voting tendencies, as would help political novices find their in-crowd. It's rather like the difference between the statement "Lincoln ended slavery." and a 500 page history precisely detailing the events of that era; the latter is overkill for my needs.

I recognize liberalism (the ideological variant) as the basis of nearly all mainstream American politics. Typically, I think of mainstream US politics as a debate between three offshoots of this: one which focuses on social freedom and is influential within the Democratic Party, one which emphasizes financial freedom and largely composes the Republican Party, and one which holds both in careful balance, resulting in the US Libertarian Party and the libertarian-leaning subsets of the two major parties. I generalize in referring to the emphasis on financial freedom as right-wing, on social freedom as left-wing, and on the careful mutual emphasis as libertarianism.

I also recognize various other influences on US politics, such as the philosophical arguments of the Bible, Socialism, and Ayn Rand, and practical environmental and business concerns.

But, all in all, your answer is more historical and less practical than I was looking for. I hope you don't take any offense from that.

[Mustang1]

Nah...no offence taken.

I think you can add some other elements to American party/ideologies. Firstly, the GOP is need of some revitalization. Most conservative writers are still stuck in the 1970s and still get nostalgic for Orange County and Reagan. It's in a state of flux as it tries to redefine itself (which can be quite different for people who cherish tradition) to reconnect not only with its core (it lost significant college graduates, California since 1988 and moderates) but attract other Americans who don't see Limbaugh as a prophet.

So, in terms of classifications, you've got the old Reagan reform conservatives (those ones mentioned above), social conservatives (and that can be difficult to articulate) and neocons and those that in many ways defy classification. Does this translate into votes? I don't know and even the best pollsters will tell you that. Elections don't always hinge on ideology, they can focus on issues, events, crises and sometimes there's a grassroots movement that seeks to punish a ruling party. Elections should always be evaluated withing their own context.

[Psudo]

The first of what will likely be many drafts of my analysis:

X means nearly everyone in this group rejects that issue position.
√ means nearly everyone in this group supports that issue position.
- means the group is approximately evenly divided or is disinterested in taking any stance on the issue.

The groups listed should not be assumed to be even approximately equal in membership, especially the left-wing groups due to my aforementioned ignorance. For example, the "open immigration" column is almost all green checks but, as the 2005 immigration bill's failure proved, US politics is approximately evenly divided on the issue. In a final draft of this analysis, it'd be nice if they were approximately equal in membership (at least within an order of magnitude), but it's clearly not true yet.

Actually, I've already found a mistake: Core Liberal should not be listed as opposed to gun control. As much as I've heard about the two schools of libertarianism, one moderate and one radical, I imagine they shouldn't match quite so precisely as they are either. Other subtler mistakes are probably quite numerous.

The intent of this kind of analysis of political ideologies is to see common ground between groups that are not necessarily ideologically similar. For example, Paleoconservatives are almost exactly opposed to Rational Progressivists (as described in the article that started the thread) except on the issue of international trade regulation where they are both protectionists. You can also see positions of widespread agreement across a diversity of political viewpoints (such as opposition to the taxation of religious institutions).

Of course, these things would be easier to see if the data in this table was predominantly accurate rather than half guesswork.

But, as you can see, I didn't mean literally which way their votes went. Rather, I meant what issues are likely to sway their votes.

[Psudo]

Classifying by domestic issues can be simplified down to a tendency to regulate, a tendency to deregulate, and a moderate position in each of two fields: economics and social issues. That gives 9 possible domestic philosophies:
1) right-wing (regulate social, deregulate economics)
2) left-wing (deregulate social, regulate economics)
3) authoritarian (regulate both)
4) libertarian (deregulate both)
5) centrist (moderate on both)
6) libertarian left (deregulate social, moderate economics)
7) libertarian right (moderate social, deregulate economics)
8) authoritarian left (moderate social, regulate economics)
9) authoritarian right (regulate social, moderate economics)

Then I can think of six different policies regarding foreign relations, too:
1) globalist - moving towards one global standard for how things work
2) internationalist - things are properly decided by consensus among nations
3) coalitionist - our cause is justified by the support of our crowd of allies
4) activist - our international purpose is to persuade people to our philosophy
5) unilateralist - foreign relations only matter if our nation benefits
6) isolationist - generally, foreign relations complicate without benefit

Cross-matching those sets of views results in 54 total ideologies, most of which are dramatically unpopular. The average size would be less than 2% of the population, but there aren't that many globalist libertarians or isolationist authoritarians in US politics. It'd be interesting to see which ideologies under these definitions had what level of popular support.

The cliches of the two major US parties are left-wing internationalist for Democrats and right-wing coalitionist for Republicans, but both parties also have their internal activist and globalist trends.