@ianbicking I think your theory collapses when you account for all the different political leanings out there:
- socialism (oppressor vs. oppressed)
- fascism/alt-right (glory vs. weakness?)
- left-libertarianism (freedom vs. coercion but also oppressor vs. oppressed)
- neoliberalism (efficiency vs. inefficiency)
@ianbicking Also, how do you define "progress"? Libertarians would define progress as "more liberty," communists would define progress as "more equality," neolibs would define progress as "higher GDP," etc.
@jwinnie Well this part is easy! This isn't about a rational value system, this is about the emotional cues that resonate.
What is progress? It matters a lot to me, because if you convince me that something is progress then I'll get excited about it.
And maybe that's something important: we're open to arguments about how we should apply our values. But if (for instance) you try to convince me that a particular group is the oppressed or the oppressor, I can agree and yet am unmoved.
@jwinnie Is there anything wrong with having a lot of them? Except that you need some critical mass that is able to construct and reinforce these ideas among themselves.
I suspect people have a dominant perspective, and the secondary perspective is much much weaker. So you only get as many dichotomies as there are distinct intellectual and cultural political groups.
@ianbicking So you think all of these ideas are subdivisions of "liberal," "conservative," "libertarian," and "technocratic"?
@jwinnie Not at all – the point is that there's no universal spectrum that applies to all these political identities. If you can convince enough people of a value system you can create a new political identity from scratch.
The outcomes of that value system might align with another value system. For instance, I think technocratic and liberal are closely aligned, with "progressive" maybe being the loose term to encompass both. But the reasons and emotional resonances are still distinct.
@ianbicking I understand your point now. This is a very interesting idea.
But I would change the terminology a bit. To me, "Liberal" is "progress vs. superstition" and "Leftist" is "oppressor vs. oppressed."
Generalistic and moderated instance.