Red Green Blue Wings

From dKosopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Intro

A cognative element to replace left and right which overall is a losing frame for the left.

See a proposed dkos diary, Diary On Red Green Blue, feel free to edit (keep byline accurate) and submit as your own diary (include byline).

Reasons

  • The left right spectrum does not chart most people well.
  • Truly moderate or pragmatic middle positions are not represented on the left right gradient.
  • The extremes are to much promoted... the spectrum idealizes extremes as "pure". A real spectral approach characterizes the extremes as "simple".
  • Right means conservative and well known, left means experimental and theoretical, the right benefits from an assumption of familiarity even when it's neoconservatism which is a reform movement trying to restructure things on entirely new formulations.
  • Stalinism ruined "leftism" as a term
  • Right means "correct"
  • The spectral approach uses the now-common Red and Blue (and Purple) connotations for political philosophy.
  • ...

Structure

Instead of Left Wing and Right Wing, the proposal is to use colors to chart political ideology. By having three such ideologies and guaging an individual philosophy in terms of affinity with each three, one generates a color. In terms of voters, the rating for each of the primary colors is the voter's liklihood of voting for the ideal candidate of that ideology.


Chromatic Space

All colors (but not all qualities of surface) can be made in terms of mixing three colors of light, red, green and blue. The system works by taking three independent political ideals and rating in each on a scale from 0 to 100%.

  • Purple is Red and Blue
  • Yellow is Red and Green
  • Cyan (sky blue) is Green and Blue

This is different than Pigment space, which was not used for description because yellow is not the primary color we want. Green implies a good sort of stewardship... we do not want to encourage stewardship for

image:Tri1.jpg

IMAGE NOTE: I would like a color triangle with more visible secondary colors. this? Image:Triangle spectrum.jpg

Loose

Please also refer to the "strict" interpretation for future direction less dependent on the whims of party platforms which can change

The loose interpretation serves to chart a voter in terms of how affiliated they are with each of three parties. These parties are taken because they illustrate a lot of feature of the left, what descriminates people that are bunched together on a traditional right-left political spectrum, but do not discriminate so much on the conservative side. The point here is that to discriminate between conservatives requires moving "leftward" that is, toward the blue-green boundary.

  • Red Number - Chances of voting Republican
  • Blue Number - Chances of voting Democrat
  • Green Number - Chances of voting Green

Why these three parties serve us as good posts in charting, besides the reason given above, is better undrestood in the "strict" defintion when political abstractions are used instead of parties, and the degree to which the abstractions do capture something fundamental about those parties.

Strict

NOTE: this is the analytic section... be informed by the "loose" defintion above, abstracting from that understanding to something more fundamental logically. This first draft is something decent, which works as a charting principle, that is, people can place themselves on the chart sensibly, but it needs work as well to improve clarity, spread, and efficacy.

To chart a philosophy, each quotient is expressed as the degree to which one adopts that quotients approach, as a percentage from 0% (= not at all) to 100% (= fully in support of this approach). The entire spectrum is "with respect to social policy", that is, one's approach to social policy is the thing being charted.

  • Red - Beligerant Approach Quotient
    problem with drugs? War on Drugs? Problem with terrorism, War on Terrorism? Poverty? War on Poverty. Economically this equates to "hard line" approaches, rather than nuturing approaches.
  • Blue - Situational Approach Quotient
    pragmatics, situational ideology, social security approaches, not the program but the ideal, in which a material problem is dealt with by social engineered means. Neither Nurtering or Beligerent by nature, rather pragmatic instead. It's social construction as an engineering and/or art form. Compromise with principle is on the table.
  • Green - Stewardship Approach

One can think of this in the ecological sense of course, but also economically. While not a socialist position, socialism is one of it's expressions, as this is one way to take a stand as stewards (in this case of personal economy).

Chart Reading

Anti Extremism

The chart dismotivates extremism. At the extremes the Red lacks diplomacy or fine hands for fine work, the Green lacks sufficient respect for independence and individual right to, for example, err, and the Blue lacks ideology and guiding principle to ground "pragmatism" with a theme, with a definite goal.

The Red-Blue Line

A familiar line which is the current political spectrum from left to right, but reinterpreted to mean, from beligerent to pragmatic. It cedes that the Blue side is less ideological, and in that sense less principled, but the spectrum gives direction to go to obtain guiding principles besides "toward war".

Those moderated on this line are a purple as Ohio and Florida.

The Blue - Green Line

A boundry along which left wing politics shows feature and differentiation. This is an axis that mixes practical leadership with moral imperative. It's not that the Green leaning people do not want optimal solutions, but the more green they are the more they are arguing that as stewards we need to do what is "right" rather than make practical compromises like engineers seeking imperfect optimums. Similarly, it's not that Blue leaners are without values, but merely that they are leaning toward pragmatic solutions and compromises first, and will get their guiding principles from other parts of the spectrum.

The Red-Green Line

A very unexplored yellow territory that does, absolutely exist and which is not only uncharted but vital. Vital. There are a lot of conservatives stuck out on the red peninsula who will not chart their voyage to more progressive lands through the (to them) dangerous moral skepticism of the blue areas. Even if they agree more with the blue than the red, they are stuck purple (thus voted Bush because they KNEW WHERE HE STOOD). The know that Blue doesn't know where it stands because it's situational. It is case by case. They need charts for the Yellow regions, so they can go Greenward without having to suffer a moral ambiguity which is anathema to them.


The Center

Note that the triangle is actually a pyramid, the triangle is only a slice. Consider the middle of the triangle where the red, green, and blue are exactly equal, that is some shade of gray from black to white. So there is a spectrum there which relates to your advocacy of all three positions equally ranging from, not all all, in all cases, to very much in each case.

A grey scale from black nihilism to white, a scale for the "extreme moderate" that celebrates the vivacity of all three extremes joined together, or shuns all equally. Before one misunderstand the worth of such a person, these are the type that can protect the status quo of government as civil servants and protectors of legitimate government.


Economic Axes

Economically freemarket conservativism does not belong to the Conservative areas toward the red tip, it exists all along the red to blue edge inward as people generally adopt some socialisms, which is the material representation of green stewardship in terms of economy. (Example: most people believe in socialized police services as opposed to relying on merely private security.) Green is the color of socialism in this triangle because this stewardship leads to a managed economy at it's extreme.

Fiscal conservativism (controlling spending) exists in the center of the triangle, but probably is strongest near the blue, which as the pragmatic non-ideological point of the triangle is most likely to take a fiscally conservative approach for purely practical means (you can only real spend what you can afford), whereas the red and green tip have more ideological motivations to eschew pragmatism in favor of a favorite war or social program.

Overall this triangle removes Economic positions as a defining axis, which is to it's benefit if you believe this has been a false dichotomy used against the left all along.

Advocacy

Pro

Con

Personal tools