James Lawless – View from the Tracks

In weaning myself off the campaign trail, I have been experimenting with various politically-related diversions over the past week or so. I used to watch a  ‘West Wing’ a night when I was out campaigning, and am finishing my run through series 7 at present. Whilst instinctively and emotively I back Santos (who is almost a fictional Obama) I’ve been wondering a little more recently as to the virtues of Vinick (Republican party nominee in the series, and McCain like, a moderate Conservative with some views putting him firmly in the liberal fringe of his own GOP).

Which leads me nicely into this piece. A few years ago I took the ‘Political Compass‘ test to see where I sat on the political spectrum. I took it again yesterday and nestled in again at almost the same spot. According to the compass I am a ‘left-libertarian’. Interesting. What makes it especially interesting is looking at where others are plotted on the same graph.

It would appear I am in Ralph Nader territory (nothing particularly wrong with that). Might be surprising however for one who recently contested an election for what is sometimes described as a ‘right wing’ or a ‘pro-business’ party (Fianna Fáil). So lets dig a little deeper. I did a tot across the suggested reading list for those in my quadrant (the “lib-lefties”) and found the following:

Naomi Klein – No Logo ; Check
Fast Food Nation ; Check
Noam Chomsky ; Check
Michael Moore ; Check
Al Franken ; Check
Repeat..

Yes in a list which includes much fringe American punditry as well as more universal globalisation literature and more far reaching material, I’m pretty much up to speed. In fact all the above grace my library shelf already.

Lets have a look at where others sit on the graph. Interestingly the majority of modern politicians from all parties occupy the top-right quadrant. That includes Obama, David Cameron, Hilary Clinton, Joe Biden, John McCain, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and our own FF and FG at governmental level. In fact there is barely a whisker between any of them really. This plotting of positions is achieved by weighing either executive decisions of government or individual senate voting records across a variety of test issues.

It is illustrative to note how a politician like Hilary Clinton, for example, who would be considered ‘leftist’ in the States, is actually a conservative centrist by European standards.

Quoting from the site, it is also true that “Democracies with a system of proportional representation give expression to a wider range of political views. While Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader are depicted on the extreme left in an American context, they would simply be mainstream social democrats within the wider political landscape of Europe. Similarly, Obama is popularly perceived as a leftist in the United States while elsewhere in the west his record is that of a moderate conservative”

So it’s all relative in one sense. My own position is to the left of the chart. Which would initially appear at odds with my party’s interpreted position in government. And also at odds with several international politicians I support such as Barack Obama and Gordon Brown. So is the compass correct?

I invited several political friends to join me in this test and the results were again interesting. The sole Fine Gaeler to take the test occupied the busy spot up on the top right alongside the various worthies and world leaders mentioned above. However all the Fianna Fáilers joined my spot on the graph, just below the horizontal and left of the vertical. The Lib-Left quadrant. These FFers of my acqauintance would be broadly my own demographic – thirty somethings, university grads and obviously online types. Whilst I don’t think any elected reps were in the group, certainly all participants would have been quite strongly involved with the party from college days to the present and most would have own ambitions of attaining public office at some point.

So what does all this mean? There is inevitably an element that power brings responsibility and attitudes necessarily harden once one dons the mantle. Unimpeded by consequences we can freely liberalise or philosophise at will. We see a similar effect in the US primary system where the nominees veer left or right to win over the base but return rapidly to centre in order to persuade the wider public in the autumns. And elsewhere too it’s a familiar pattern.

There is no easy way to label ‘left’ or ‘right’ in modern political discourse – there are too many positions and too many possibilities. The political compass makes an excellent attempt at addressing the multiple factors and whether it is the group of Ogra FF alumni in one corner, or the clustering of world leaders on the other, obviously commonalities do exist which are trapped by the system.

But the local situation is more complex. I will speak for myself but I suspect the same analysis may apply across the rest of my peer group, including some if not all the FFers of my control group. So here goes:

I can identify with the ‘religious right’ (being strongly pro-life, pro-family and ethically guided) whilst being socially left on issues like drug policy and delinquency. I concur with such ‘left’ international causes as the anti-war movement (at least re Iraq) whilst I marvel at the technical advances arising from military research, not least in space. I support strong regulation of industry and do not trust corporations to run untethered yet am simultaneously unsympathetic to victims of the free market, certainly those who embrace it eyes open, and whose greed or naïveté led them to a crash landing (be they a bankrupt global corporation or a suburban couple who overreached themselves ‘keeping up with the joneses’). I would be regarded as left on social justice issues such as anti-poverty, the provision of basic public services including education and healthcare and would firmly believe in the moral imperative to provide for those who have not. I meanwhile respect the wishes of those who desire a higher-order service once it applies to levels of comfort and protocol rather than basic access or outcome. I advocate the importance of opportunity and an admiration for individuals who better themselves and society through economic advances, lifting all boats on a rising tide. I may be very un-PC in third world context, wondering sometimes whether penny-pauper sweat shops are still better than certain death from disease or starvation and a necessary starting block on the road out of poverty. That’s not forgetting that the base poverty arose from imperial colonisation in the first place but perhaps again then it was a Darwinist landscape and the roles could have been, and often previously were, reversed. I believe the state has responsibilities to its citizens and I would happily subsidise services from theatre to transport as delivering higher order benefits than purely the pursuit of profit. I support pan-national initiatives such as fuller European Integration whilst being an proud supporter of the Irish nation-state. I support secession in Palestine but not Northern Ireland.
….

So what does this all mean? Lots more thoughts but too many for one sitting to I will analyse anon..