A small but real part of the variation in the policy positions taken by individuals and organizations is explained by two key factors: an econ and a (social/identity/) culture factor.
The triangle formation between median-left, median-right, and libertarian positions is such a clean geometric artifact of how abstraction drives coalition formation. Point 5 about individual behavior sitting even closer to the middle than policy details tracks with what I've seen, people campaign on principle but optimize locally. The futarchy vulnerability here is real though, the more you abstract the outcome measure the more you're selecting for positions that signal principled non-conformity rather than actual policy coherence.
The challenge I run into as I age is I no longer have any idea what "right or left" even means here anymore nor conservative/liberal when I'm asked on a survey to associate them. At least right/left I can go with "of my perceived median American" but conversative/liberal, no idea.. But even then that's a problem because I could be for example pro abortion pro guns pro church pro gay ... the specific issue matters and it's not so broad as "social/government".
A good example is my stance on abortion, I'm OK with either extreme "Abortion is legal in all cases, including post natal y up to the age of majority" and likewise "Abortion is illegal in all cases sans where the child is unviable and the mother WILL (not MIGHT) die elsewise" Is that right? IDK. Is that left? IDK. Liberal? Conservative? who knows. Most issues are like that, it really depends the issue. But it matters because, like with this chart above, you get asked on surveys and then you become a data point and a mispresented one at that.
Like many libertarians, I find the left-right axis too constricting. But if left is intepreted as personal liberty and right as property liberty, then a libertarian-authoritarian axis becomes possible (but it is hard to express on a normal graph):
Most people who follow partisan boundaries in their opinion formation across issues which don't share basic assumptions (example: entitlement programs should be generous to help the poor... and green energy policies should be pursued even though they'll make energy more expensive for the poor; public education should be supported, even though it's a disaster for many minority students; etc.) are simply being led by affiliation pressures and social status signals and confirmation biases.
Naturally, very few people factor in these cognitive distortions into their own worldview. They know that they exist and that they're pervasive... but that's a problem affecting the belies of other people. "My beliefs are logical and well-informed and sincere, and I can't understand why all of these uneducated and malignant people disagree. It must be misinformation - or maybe bigotry?"
You make a valid point that explains the performative art seen in so many progressive social media posts. The expression of simplistic positions designed to garner likes and reinforce narcistic self-esteem. I also find that the progressive tendency to defend themselves by denigrating dissent or opposition to their positions with epithets like racist and fascist betrays an unacknowledged but deep seated yearning for authoritarianism. It's not "no kings", but "my kings". Their willingness to mandate behavior aligned with their philosophy is by definition, and ironically so, fascist.
'An outcome measure that was more a mess of details might be more stable and closer to detailed policy preferences, though alas that also seems more open to gaming and corruption.'
Please expand on your reasoning here, I don't follow. Detailed policy preferences would seem to me to be more subject to objective Measures of Performance and Measures of Effectiveness (real world feedback) than abstract formulations more vulnerable to concept creep and opportunistic redefinition of terms.
For example, people who make roads could lobby for more roads by getting some measure of road miles into a National welfare measure. People who want to favor cities over rural areas could push for metrics that count stuff in cities more than elsewhere.
So, you're saying something like 'Catch all omnibus bills are easier for governments to pass than a series of clean bills for each policy, but part of the reason for that is precisely because it's easier to slip policies that wouldn't pass on their own into an omnibus bill'? That does make more sense to me, if so. I've encountered the deliberate argument that 'pork is necessary to grease the wheels of government' before, though I tend not to agree with people who actively advocate for making that an intentional feature rather than an undesired inefficiency.
When you say, "So there are far more (upper left of diagram) “authoritarian” left econ and right culture folks than there are (lower right of diagram) “libertarian” right econ and left culture folks. The median left, median right, and libertarian positions roughly form a triangle", I think you're VERY badly misinterpreting this data by pretending that "liberal" correlates with "libertarian".
"Liberal" as used here is the OPPOSITE of libertarian. Libertarians want free markets, small government, free speech, equality before the law, viewpoint tolerance, and debate grounded in empirical facts. "Liberals", as the term is being used here, are today the people who are against all these things.
The left has always been the most-authoritarian culture! They gave us Robespierre, Lenin, Stalin, fascism, Mao, Castro, pol pot, and now wokeness. They have never been libertarian.
My contention that fascism is a far-left movement is unpopular today, but only due to a century of assiduous historical revisionism. In French, "right" meant monarchists and IIRC Catholics; in German left and right referred to revolutionary vs non-revolutionary Hegelians. The phrase "right wing" for politics didn't appear in English until the 1920s, and originally meant "right-wing socialist", meaning non-revolutionary socialists like Bernie Sanders today; the phrase "right-wing conservative" was rarer until the 1970s. The Nazis always rejected the term "right wing" due to its anti-revolutionary core. All fascist theorists were leftists; all fascist movements split from socialist movements (unless you count Franco as fascist); Woodrow Wilson was clearly a crucial proto-fascist; FDR was recognized by Mussolini as a fellow fascist; socialist and marxist magazines like The Nation were pro-fascist until 1933. The left has been intimately tied with fascism from the start, and most of all in its unrelenting commitment to authoritarianism. Hugo Chavez had many fascist aspects; communist China today is as fascist as any nation that's been called fascist. Fascism is just race marxism.
The triangle formation between median-left, median-right, and libertarian positions is such a clean geometric artifact of how abstraction drives coalition formation. Point 5 about individual behavior sitting even closer to the middle than policy details tracks with what I've seen, people campaign on principle but optimize locally. The futarchy vulnerability here is real though, the more you abstract the outcome measure the more you're selecting for positions that signal principled non-conformity rather than actual policy coherence.
The challenge I run into as I age is I no longer have any idea what "right or left" even means here anymore nor conservative/liberal when I'm asked on a survey to associate them. At least right/left I can go with "of my perceived median American" but conversative/liberal, no idea.. But even then that's a problem because I could be for example pro abortion pro guns pro church pro gay ... the specific issue matters and it's not so broad as "social/government".
A good example is my stance on abortion, I'm OK with either extreme "Abortion is legal in all cases, including post natal y up to the age of majority" and likewise "Abortion is illegal in all cases sans where the child is unviable and the mother WILL (not MIGHT) die elsewise" Is that right? IDK. Is that left? IDK. Liberal? Conservative? who knows. Most issues are like that, it really depends the issue. But it matters because, like with this chart above, you get asked on surveys and then you become a data point and a mispresented one at that.
To quote the ever-brilliant Alain de Benoist:
Left? Right? That’s over.
The politics of the 21st century in ‘Western’ countries will be more about identity than ideology.
Like many libertarians, I find the left-right axis too constricting. But if left is intepreted as personal liberty and right as property liberty, then a libertarian-authoritarian axis becomes possible (but it is hard to express on a normal graph):
https://jclester.substack.com/p/the-political-compass-and-why-libertarianism
Doesn't this explanation rely on a two party system?
My understanding is that the distribution of beliefs follow broadly the same pattern in Denmark (30% in 3 quadrant each and 10% libright).
Which seems to indicate another explanation is needed.
I don't see my explanation as requiring two parties.
Most people who follow partisan boundaries in their opinion formation across issues which don't share basic assumptions (example: entitlement programs should be generous to help the poor... and green energy policies should be pursued even though they'll make energy more expensive for the poor; public education should be supported, even though it's a disaster for many minority students; etc.) are simply being led by affiliation pressures and social status signals and confirmation biases.
Naturally, very few people factor in these cognitive distortions into their own worldview. They know that they exist and that they're pervasive... but that's a problem affecting the belies of other people. "My beliefs are logical and well-informed and sincere, and I can't understand why all of these uneducated and malignant people disagree. It must be misinformation - or maybe bigotry?"
https://jmpolemic.substack.com/p/postulates-of-political-belief
You make a valid point that explains the performative art seen in so many progressive social media posts. The expression of simplistic positions designed to garner likes and reinforce narcistic self-esteem. I also find that the progressive tendency to defend themselves by denigrating dissent or opposition to their positions with epithets like racist and fascist betrays an unacknowledged but deep seated yearning for authoritarianism. It's not "no kings", but "my kings". Their willingness to mandate behavior aligned with their philosophy is by definition, and ironically so, fascist.
Dick Minnis removingthecataract.substack.com
'An outcome measure that was more a mess of details might be more stable and closer to detailed policy preferences, though alas that also seems more open to gaming and corruption.'
Please expand on your reasoning here, I don't follow. Detailed policy preferences would seem to me to be more subject to objective Measures of Performance and Measures of Effectiveness (real world feedback) than abstract formulations more vulnerable to concept creep and opportunistic redefinition of terms.
For example, people who make roads could lobby for more roads by getting some measure of road miles into a National welfare measure. People who want to favor cities over rural areas could push for metrics that count stuff in cities more than elsewhere.
So, you're saying something like 'Catch all omnibus bills are easier for governments to pass than a series of clean bills for each policy, but part of the reason for that is precisely because it's easier to slip policies that wouldn't pass on their own into an omnibus bill'? That does make more sense to me, if so. I've encountered the deliberate argument that 'pork is necessary to grease the wheels of government' before, though I tend not to agree with people who actively advocate for making that an intentional feature rather than an undesired inefficiency.
When you say, "So there are far more (upper left of diagram) “authoritarian” left econ and right culture folks than there are (lower right of diagram) “libertarian” right econ and left culture folks. The median left, median right, and libertarian positions roughly form a triangle", I think you're VERY badly misinterpreting this data by pretending that "liberal" correlates with "libertarian".
"Liberal" as used here is the OPPOSITE of libertarian. Libertarians want free markets, small government, free speech, equality before the law, viewpoint tolerance, and debate grounded in empirical facts. "Liberals", as the term is being used here, are today the people who are against all these things.
Left culture has usually been seen as more libertarian than right culture.
The left has always been the most-authoritarian culture! They gave us Robespierre, Lenin, Stalin, fascism, Mao, Castro, pol pot, and now wokeness. They have never been libertarian.
My contention that fascism is a far-left movement is unpopular today, but only due to a century of assiduous historical revisionism. In French, "right" meant monarchists and IIRC Catholics; in German left and right referred to revolutionary vs non-revolutionary Hegelians. The phrase "right wing" for politics didn't appear in English until the 1920s, and originally meant "right-wing socialist", meaning non-revolutionary socialists like Bernie Sanders today; the phrase "right-wing conservative" was rarer until the 1970s. The Nazis always rejected the term "right wing" due to its anti-revolutionary core. All fascist theorists were leftists; all fascist movements split from socialist movements (unless you count Franco as fascist); Woodrow Wilson was clearly a crucial proto-fascist; FDR was recognized by Mussolini as a fellow fascist; socialist and marxist magazines like The Nation were pro-fascist until 1933. The left has been intimately tied with fascism from the start, and most of all in its unrelenting commitment to authoritarianism. Hugo Chavez had many fascist aspects; communist China today is as fascist as any nation that's been called fascist. Fascism is just race marxism.