J. Max Wilson
Political spectroscopy
By J. Max Wilson
For me, the term "Political Spectrum" evokes unexpected memories of a high school physics class. I was fortunate enough, some years ago, to have an excellent high school physics teacher, affectionately known as Mr. B. Mr. B., in turn, was fortunate enough to have a fully functional spectrometer, right there in the high school building. If I remember correctly, it technically belonged to the nearby university, but they were "storing" it at our school.
I remember the assignment Mr. B. gave to us: We were to identify the composition of an unknown material by using the spectrometer. We burned a portion of the material, and the light from the incineration was directed through a small hole into a dark room where it bounced off of a diffraction grating, which split the light into all of its different wavelengths, to produce a spectrum of light lines on the opposite wall. By photographing the spectrum and then identifying the different wavelengths present, we were able to determine the different substances from which the material was composed.
This experience with Mr. B.'s spectrometer illuminates (if you will forgive the pun) the meaning of the word "spectrum." Imagine a darkened room into which the light from a burning politician of unknown ideology is bounced off of a diffraction grating to produce a political ideology spectrum on the wall. Each bright line in the spectrum represents one of the many elements of our scorched politician's political composition. Such a contraption would be invaluable, not to mention fun and profitable.
The point of all of this spectroscopy is that a political spectrum really is like the resulting spectrum from the spectrometer. And, as with the unknown substance we were assigned to identify, we are always dealing with combinations of philosophies and never a single unified philosophy. Elements like hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen may be combined in different amounts and ways to produce vastly different materials, some of them essential to life, others toxic. We would never confuse water with carbon monoxide, even though both contain oxygen.
Likewise, molecules of political ideas and positions may be formed. We should never label a politician "conservative" simply because he believes in some "conservative" idea. We need to construct a periodic table of the political elements and then associate specific labels with all identifiable political compounds and combinations.
An interesting way of representing different political positions might be to model them as points mapped in 3D space (see graphic). Let us say that the X axis represents the Property Axis, positive X being toward private property ownership and negative X toward public ownership. The Y axis can represent the Government Axis, positive Y representing toward No Government and negative Y toward Totalitarian Government. The Z Axis can represent Morality, with positive Z being toward an absolute or universal moral standard, and negative Y toward Moral Relativism.
Such a system might help identify, in a visual way, the general political position of a group or of an individual. One could quickly see that though both Libertarians and Anarchists lean toward the "No Government" side of the Government Axis, on the Property Axis, Libertarians are very strong toward private property ownership, whereas Anarchists believe in as little private ownership as possible. A Libertarian would put up a "No Trespassing" sign on her property, whereas an Anarchist would say that the land belongs to everyone and cannot be owned--but both would want as little government as possible.
Categorizing political views is as dangerous as grouping people into any sort of reductionist label system. Beyond the label there is an irreducible individual who is unique, and even more importantly, changing. Such irreducible individuals as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Benjamin Franklin possessed not only the correct principles, but the correct personalities and attributes to accomplish the formation and preservation of our nation during their times. In the end, it is the individual that makes all the difference because in the end we vote for and elect individuals, not ideologies.
Therefore, we should seek out those unique individuals who not only affiliate themselves with true principles, but are honest, able, and like the Founders, possess that indefinable, individual "something" that can make all the difference in these troubled times. Men and women whose talent, integrity, and personalities compel them to strive for that which is virtuous, just, honorable, and moral and who have that uncommon gift, or combination of gifts, that enable them to inspire others, regardless of their current political affiliations, to do the same.
© J. Max Wilson
For me, the term "Political Spectrum" evokes unexpected memories of a high school physics class. I was fortunate enough, some years ago, to have an excellent high school physics teacher, affectionately known as Mr. B. Mr. B., in turn, was fortunate enough to have a fully functional spectrometer, right there in the high school building. If I remember correctly, it technically belonged to the nearby university, but they were "storing" it at our school.
I remember the assignment Mr. B. gave to us: We were to identify the composition of an unknown material by using the spectrometer. We burned a portion of the material, and the light from the incineration was directed through a small hole into a dark room where it bounced off of a diffraction grating, which split the light into all of its different wavelengths, to produce a spectrum of light lines on the opposite wall. By photographing the spectrum and then identifying the different wavelengths present, we were able to determine the different substances from which the material was composed.
This experience with Mr. B.'s spectrometer illuminates (if you will forgive the pun) the meaning of the word "spectrum." Imagine a darkened room into which the light from a burning politician of unknown ideology is bounced off of a diffraction grating to produce a political ideology spectrum on the wall. Each bright line in the spectrum represents one of the many elements of our scorched politician's political composition. Such a contraption would be invaluable, not to mention fun and profitable.
The point of all of this spectroscopy is that a political spectrum really is like the resulting spectrum from the spectrometer. And, as with the unknown substance we were assigned to identify, we are always dealing with combinations of philosophies and never a single unified philosophy. Elements like hydrogen, carbon, and oxygen may be combined in different amounts and ways to produce vastly different materials, some of them essential to life, others toxic. We would never confuse water with carbon monoxide, even though both contain oxygen.
Likewise, molecules of political ideas and positions may be formed. We should never label a politician "conservative" simply because he believes in some "conservative" idea. We need to construct a periodic table of the political elements and then associate specific labels with all identifiable political compounds and combinations.
An interesting way of representing different political positions might be to model them as points mapped in 3D space (see graphic). Let us say that the X axis represents the Property Axis, positive X being toward private property ownership and negative X toward public ownership. The Y axis can represent the Government Axis, positive Y representing toward No Government and negative Y toward Totalitarian Government. The Z Axis can represent Morality, with positive Z being toward an absolute or universal moral standard, and negative Y toward Moral Relativism.
Such a system might help identify, in a visual way, the general political position of a group or of an individual. One could quickly see that though both Libertarians and Anarchists lean toward the "No Government" side of the Government Axis, on the Property Axis, Libertarians are very strong toward private property ownership, whereas Anarchists believe in as little private ownership as possible. A Libertarian would put up a "No Trespassing" sign on her property, whereas an Anarchist would say that the land belongs to everyone and cannot be owned--but both would want as little government as possible.
Categorizing political views is as dangerous as grouping people into any sort of reductionist label system. Beyond the label there is an irreducible individual who is unique, and even more importantly, changing. Such irreducible individuals as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Benjamin Franklin possessed not only the correct principles, but the correct personalities and attributes to accomplish the formation and preservation of our nation during their times. In the end, it is the individual that makes all the difference because in the end we vote for and elect individuals, not ideologies.
Therefore, we should seek out those unique individuals who not only affiliate themselves with true principles, but are honest, able, and like the Founders, possess that indefinable, individual "something" that can make all the difference in these troubled times. Men and women whose talent, integrity, and personalities compel them to strive for that which is virtuous, just, honorable, and moral and who have that uncommon gift, or combination of gifts, that enable them to inspire others, regardless of their current political affiliations, to do the same.
© J. Max Wilson
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
