Persons on the extreme left and far left are the utopians of politics. They have a very optimistic view of human nature and the ability of people to improve themselves and live in society with few restraints. There is a greater faith in the individual to use freedom constructively and an expectation that the average person will not infringe on the rights of others. People in this category are usually secular in their outlook.

Those in the middle left are those we have come to call liberals and progressives. They are somewhat less optimistic about the human condition, yet they too, focus on equality and individual rights as a means of improving society. Because a sense of hopefulness prevails among liberals, there is little fear of disrupting present institutions because there is a belief that better forms can be devised.

Continuing from the center and moving to the right, the term conservative has been used to characterize the middle right because they favor conserving and maintaining present institutions as a means of stabilizing society. Here the view of human nature is more doubtful. As they look around, conservatives see ample evidence of people who cannot be trusted, and they are also aware that people will probably continue to abuse the rights of others.

On the far right and extreme right, pessimism of human nature is at its highest. The term reactionary is applied here to describe those who are reacting in opposition to the present situation, and who believe that civilization has deteriorated because humanity has gone astray.

Revolutionaries on the right are sometimes influenced by a particular brand of religion, ranging from an evangelical version to extreme forms that may involve the use of terror to eliminate enemies of their faith. Revolutionaries on the left, however, almost never believe in a god of any kind. These competing characteristics are especially noteworthy when confronting international terrorism in all parts of the world. A belief in a god is often found with people on the right, but less frequently on the left.

Revolutionaries at both extremes are distinguished from all others on the spectrum because these two smaller groups (at opposite ends of the spectrum) advocate a violent overthrow of the present system. On the extreme left, revolutionaries wish to bring forth a bold, new system where there are no long-term restraints on people, where everyone lives in international harmony with no governments or political boundaries (Marxism). On the extreme right, revolutionaries advocate a resurrection of elements from the past (Fascism). Here the effort is to build a nationalistic, authoritarian society where people support a strong leader.

Revolutionaries of the extreme left and on the extreme right may have a similarity of intensity in belief, but have profoundly different views of human nature. In practice they are bitter enemies, and they are pledged to annihilate each other. The extreme tips of the spectrum are reserved for those dedicated to a violent revolution whereas the center portions are devoted to a non-violent approach. It is helpful to view the political spectrum as a political thermometer with moderate temperatures in the middle and boiling points at both ends.

In real life, however, each of us is spread out on the political spectrum in a unique way; we are all a combination of views peculiar to us alone. For this reason, positions on the political continuum can be labeled as a particular perspective, but it is difficult – if not impossible – to label individual people with any precision. A person cannot be a perfect representation of a position on the spectrum in much the same way as they cannot represent all the characteristics of a political party, an economic system, or a world religion.

The real value of comparing the left and right is to note there are ideological clusters on each side of spectrum not unlike the concentration of certain opinions in each of our political parties. There is still a lot of variety among individual liberals and conservatives, but it is helpful to notice the general continuity of values that are common in each group.

There are also many practical problems when classifying people as being on the left or right. Some, for example, consider themselves to be on the left in respect to social policy, but they favor fiscal policies from the right. In reverse, there are people who see themselves as having right-wing views on foreign policy, but they cling to left-wing ideas on some aspect of domestic affairs. Others have such divergent points of view that they don’t seem to fit into any particular political group.

Donald Trump may be the most notable example of someone who does not fit neatly on the political spectrum. In the past he was registered as a Democratic, and later became a Republican. His critics contend that he changes his point of view depending on how issues affect him personally – he is also driven by the need to take a position in opposition to his political enemies. Trump sees himself as a “counter-puncher” that always strikes back against his critics. He admitted in an interview in 2018 that his targeting of the press as “the enemy of the people,” was just his “way of fighting back.” Trump is erratic in politics. Even his supporters do not embrace many of his policies because his views run counter to traditional conservative doctrine.

Trump’s unpredictability positions illustrate how much Americans depend on the regular, traditional views of the right and left. Yet Trump’s unusual combination of ideology is attractive to many who are not consistently liberal or conservative.

Since there are no widely accepted definitions of the key positions on the political spectrum, we often hear people stating examples when identifying a particular point of view. They may say, “When I say liberal I mean someone who favors civil rights for minorities,” or “A conservative is one who favors reducing the size of government.” While both of these examples may be essentially correct, they offer only a vague idea of the terms we use daily to describe both our friends and foes in politics, and no analysis as to why they feel that way.

Most people have no working definition of these terms, yet they use them daily to describe their foes in politics. A trade union member might say, “Sure, I know what a conservative is – he’s the guy who doesn’t care about the working man.” A retired farmer offers this comment, “All liberals do is raise our taxes and pour money into the big cities.” From a critic of the military comes the charge, “The generals are a bunch of reactionaries who love war.” And finally, from a businessman, “Radicals have burned our flag, insulted our honor, and tried to destroy the freeenterprise system.”

Eternal Questions

Yet regardless of the charges and labels, there are legitimate differences that separate the political philosophies of the left and the right. Despite the many new variations and shades of opinion, the distinction between the two opposing sides can be classified when individuals are examined carefully in how they respond to three fundamental questions that must be addressed in every political doctrine. How a group or individual reacts to these queries determines both the direction (right or left) and degree (moderate or extreme) on the spectrum.

1. What is the nature of humanity? Are people inherently good or bad?

Is it possible to improve the human condition substantially or are individuals always flawed by inborn characteristics that cause them to be irresponsible and non-cooperative? Can people be trusted to live in a state of greater freedom? Will most people squander their freedom or will they use it wisely and prudently? An answer to these questions is built-in to every political doctrine.

The overall view on the worth of the average person has been quite unfavorable over the centuries. Historically, there was almost no faith in wisdom of common folks. Authoritarian figures throughout the world propagated the belief that one’s individual status was determined by birth, gender, race, or ethnic membership. There was little or no expectation that human beings had any potential to govern themselves. Those in power always had a vested interest in maintaining their exclusive right to rule. Their use of mythology, rank, title, royal birth order and traditional procedures insulated the top elites from any outside scrutiny. In both Eastern and Western civilizations there was a strong belief that most people were not worthy to judge the policies of the church or state. Those at the bottom of the structure were politically expendable, and had no separate rights of their own.

But Christianity and other world religions had more complex views of human nature. According to some religions, humans were born in sin and most of them would likely be condemned to eternal suffering in Hell. Yet it was also possible that humans had the capacity to be rewarded with an eternal paradise in complete happiness. The political implications of these two views are enormous. If people are regarded as basically sinful and inclined toward evil deeds, then certainly the political system would reflect the need to keep them under control. If, on the other hand, the assumption is that individual persons are basically good, and could be made better, then that belief will also be important in shaping the political system. Yet the bottom line in early history was that the masses would always be ruled from above.

Opposing assumptions on the potential of humanity have been intertwined in political and religious philosophy from prehistory to the present. Contrasting views on human nature have been the points of departure for every major philosopher from the Greeks to modern times. Underlying every political and religious doctrine have been many gradations of optimism or pessimism about whether human beings have any inherent qualities or abilities to participate and improve their own condition on earth.

Directly or indirectly, this question has been asked or assumed: Are people inherently good? On the political left the answer has been shades of “yes.” On the right the answer has been various degrees of “no.”

Perhaps the two most important political questions are: How much can we trust the average person? How much should society help individuals to live a better life? As would be expected, the degree of faith in humanity varies tremendously between the left and right. The gradations on the political spectrum are characterized by the statements in the above figure. On the left there is an expectation that humans have a genuine potential to live in some degree of harmony, and society has an obligation to aid everyone to live a more rewarding life. On the right, however, there is less optimism about humanity, and there is a greater emphasis on well-developed structures to promote the welfare of all the people.

Note the italicized words below which move from left to right on the spectrum:

• Revolutionary radicals are dedicated to the belief that humans can be perfected.

• Radicals are inspired by the proposition that people can be improved.

• Liberals are motivated by the promise that the human condition can be reformed.

• Conservatives’ belief that people are at their best when they show more self-control.

• Reactionaries want a nation where individuals are inspired by their absolute faith.

• Revolutionary reactionaries demand a state in which people are disciplined.

It is clear that one’s point of view on human nature supplies the single most important belief in a political philosophy. The expectations of how people will act and react in an open setting are crucial because the design of the institutions will be based on their anticipated conduct. It follows closely that if individuals are expected to be trustworthy and wise, then the various institutions may be more flexible – but if the average person is driven only by self-interest and greed, then the general structure of society will reflect a more restrictive view.

A basic optimism or pessimism about the human condition is intertwined also with the second question to be asked. The two enquiries are interdependent, but they must be pursued in order because assumptions about human nature are always the first and most important factor in determining how the institutions of society should be designed.

2. Given the nature of humanity, what are the best forms of institutions for society?

Should there be fewer or more societal restraints on people’s behavior? Is there a need to design the institutions with a definite structure and orderly design? How important is it to provide an atmosphere of stability and predictable order? What will be the probable outcome if there is wider latitude of choice? Will greater freedom improve society, or will folks abuse that situation by harming others?

The nature of humanity is first established in the minds of every revolutionary and constitution writer before a new system is imagined or proposed. It is only then that the next important question can be considered: how to organize the institutions of society?

The theoretical structures of society vary greatly on the political spectrum. But these gradations from left to right are very important because that are implemented when establishing an ideal system for human beings. Moreover, these beliefs about humanity’s role in society are used on a daily basis to socialize people as to how they are expected to behave. In some nations, individuals are taught the absolute need for strict rules to live by. But in other countries, the socialization process provides for much greater diversity as to beliefs and rules of conduct.

Again, note the italicized phrases. On the left end of the spectrum, the institutions are designed to focus on humanistic goals with the expectation that people will not abuse the benefits provided. But on the right side of continuum, however, institutions are geared more to controlling the disruptive qualities of people, and to maintaining the advantages of those who hold authority, wealth, or power. Life in these various societies would be dramatically different as noted by these political philosophers:

• Revolutionary radicals visualize a totally classless society in a model prophesized by Karl Marx, (1818-1883).

• Radicals accept the idea of a rational, community-wide consciousness that was once imagined by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, (1712-1778).

• Liberals propose a series of guaranteed personal rights that were inspired by John Locke, (1632-1704).

• Conservatives wish to preserve individual opportunity in a society that was described by Edmund Burke, (1729-1797).

• Reactionaries hope to restrain humanity under harsh rules and restrictions advocated by Thomas Hobbes, (1588-1679).

• Revolutionary Reactionaries demand a glorious system of complete allegiance in a regime established by Adolf Hitler, (1889-1945).

After the questions of expectations for humans and the proper institutions for them have been established, one more issue needs to be addressed: what means are justifiable to attain the goals of society. As was the case with the first two philosophical inquires, this question also must be asked in order because the justification for particular strategies arises only after the designs for a society have been set.

3. Given the nature of humanity and the design of institutions, which political strategies should be employed in society?

To what extent are democratic procedures: freedom of expression, elections, lobbying, legislative bodies, and competing political parties useful in deciding the conduct of politics? Will individuals cooperate peacefully through the political system? Can they be trusted to decide important matters of policy, or must there be checks on popular rule? What rights should be enjoyed by minorities and those who may disagree with those in power? How are internal dissenters and enemies of the state to be treated? Should the death penalty be used to punish serious dissent? Are force, violence, and terrorism legitimate strategies to use against internal opponents? Which tactics or enforcement systems are necessary to create the ideal society?

Political strategies to be used in society are determined in part by one’s position in politics and also by an awareness of which tactics are appropriate to reach a particular set of goals. For example, most of the objectives for liberals and conservatives can be achieved through bargaining, compromising, and other strategies within the system. Indeed, if there are common values these two shares, it is the preservation of the political system through mutual accommodation. Both have considerable influence in society as it is presently constituted. They not only prefer moderation in tactics, they depend upon it because their entire strategy in politics is designed to function in a situation where the political system is orderly and stable. Moderates get nervous if people raise their voices in anger or take to the streets. But it is noteworthy that persons at the far ends of the spectrum are more inclined to use more assertive tactics, and in some cases, they are willing to use violence.

It is a logical step in politics to design one’s strategies to fit one’s political goals. Normally, goals and strategies are closely linked. If a moderate goal is sought, it is likely that a fairly moderate strategy will be appropriate. But if the goal is to overthrow the system, then certainly the strategy will be more aggressive. For example, persons on the extreme left and right want to dismantle the present system and start anew. The enormity of this task and expected resistance from others often cause these revolutionaries to feel a sense of desperation; their deep sense of anguish and discontent quite naturally justifies tactics in their minds that would not be considered by the more moderate element in society.

But the most important dividing line on the entire spectrum is whether to use violence against the opposition. All other factors shade together as matters of degree and intensity. But the conscious plan to use lethal force against opponents on a prolonged basis separates the revolutionary from all others in politics.

Revolutionaries on both sides have a violent mind-set that sets them apart from all others. The continued use of force colors their entire view of life. In many cases it is literally a matter of killing off the opposition. It is noteworthy that the death penalty is usually supported by folks at the both tips of the political continuum.

This political spectrum illustrates that political strategies range all the way from democratic procedures in the center to more assertive tactics on the far sides, and finally to the use of planned violent revolution on the extremes. As noted earlier, the spectrum is like a political thermometer, with a cool area in the middle range, warmer temperatures on the far sides, and boiling points on both ends.

Competition is an important theme on the right side of the spectrum. Right-wing folks general believe that it’s is a tough world out there, everybody is pretty much on their own, and it’s important to defend yourself and your own group. Conservatives and reactionaries share the admonition that the wise person needs to compete vigorously against others for the scarce resources available, and then defend those holdings against all others. This view of human nature is very pessimistic on the right, and therefore people are likely to band together to use weapons against outsiders. There is an expectation that the first order of life is to guard your own possessions, and not depend on anyone you don’t know. Perhaps the difference between the left and right is the sharpest when it comes down to the question of trusting people outside of the immediate group. On the right there is always a view that some sinister force is lurking outside, while people on the left people are generally more willing to trust a new group or idea.

In a new situation, the liberal strategy is to immediately come up with a plan of sharing resources so that all would be given equal treatment. The left shows an almost automatic inclination toward building a democratic-styled government based on equality. Socialism fists well into this kind of society where critical services are offered freely to all citizens; there is a feeling of empathy for everyone and a sort of idealistic faith that everyone can work together.

Conservatives have a negative reaction is to the “let’s share everything” proposal. There is an inherent belief on the right that inequality is a fact of life, and there is no particular reason to share resources. It follows that there is less interest on the right in designing a democraticallyelected body where the essentials of life are shared. Capitalism fits well into this temperament. Folks on the right would generally agree with these thoughts:

• No one else has a right to what I’ve earned, and I have no right to other’s possessions.

• Government should not require one person to subsidize another.

• Political fairness is getting what you deserve, not what you need.

• Poor people have no special entitlement to financial support.

• Social Security and Medicare rob people of the freedom to take care of themselves.

• High taxes punish the most creative, hard-working people in society.

As stated earlier, the unifying conviction on the left is that human beings are burdened down by exploitation and suffering. The strategy on this side of the spectrum is take action to improve the situation. The left always has a plan to redistribute the wealth. A predictable strategy is to use government to lift the burden from the dispossessed and to dismantle the structures they believe are causing human exploitation. Again, the trust factor comes into play.

When liberals and radicals see wars, segregation, poverty or inequality, they are motivated by a collective call to action – they want to put an end to the destructive struggle. To help others, leftists carry placards out on the street, write letters to the newspaper, sign petitions, or run for public office. Their strategy is born out of a shared conscience based on a strong sense of empathy. They just naturally put themselves in the shoes of others. In their political campaigns, they appeal to a sense of justice – to right the wrongs they see around them. The left can’t rest until something has been done to ease the plight of the downtrodden.

As expected, the right has a different view. They not only disagree, but conclude that the overactive policies of liberalism make things worse instead of better. Conservatives and reactionaries are careful not to promise anyone a rose garden – they don’t want to raise expectations of help where none is deserved – they believe “do-gooders” and “idealists” cause less motivated people to become dependent on government. Leaders on the right see human suffering, wars, injustice, and poverty as unfortunate facts of life that will always be there. There is a loud silence from conservatives when liberals talk about what needs to be done to take care of all these problems. Conservatives are fond of saying, “Just because there’s a problem doesn’t mean we should create another government agency to look for a solution.” Often there is the additional warning that the government will probably make it worse instead of better. Those on the right side of the spectrum have the firm conviction that individuals are responsible for their own welfare – there is no collective responsibility to try to cure all the ills of society.

Fixing Society

It is interesting when we consider how quickly people jump to political conclusions when they hear disturbing information. Many of us have a preprogrammed reaction to the news. For example, what would be your first thought if you heard anyone of the following announcements on an evening TV newscast? Think about each one of these topics for a moment.

• There’s been another mass shooting today in the United States.

• Unemployment in minority neighborhoods has increased to record levels.

• Organized prayers in public schools have been held to be unconstitutional.

Some people would have this reaction to the comments above:

“I need to buy more ammunition to defend myself.”

“I have a job – they can find one if they really go out and look.”

“Children should have prayer time in school no matter what the court says.”

There is a strong strain of individualism in the above statements, seeing the issues through the eyes of someone who takes sole responsibility for themselves. In addition, there is a message here that each of us is on our own to defend ourselves, and to be responsible for our own employment, and that we can worship as we please. There is a certain personal strength in each of these statements with little or no mention or concern for those who may feel otherwise. But another group would have a different reaction to the same announcements on the evening news about mass shootings, unemployment, or prayer in school:

“It’s high time we have background checks on all gun purchases.”

“The government should set up a jobs program for the unemployed.”

“Children have a constitutional right to not engage in religious activities.”

The above reaction reflects a strong collectivist and secular theme. There is a strong sensitivity as to how these issues will affect the entire community. The focus is on everyone rather than individuals. There is an effort to settle the issues of guns, unemployment, and religion in a format that would include the entire public by setting out policy requirements that may or may not be acceptable to everyone.

Without realizing it, we often respond to issues in an automatic manner. We jump to conclusions without thinking it through completely. There is an inclination to fall back on a pattern of thinking that reflects our political values. Many of us engage in ideological thinking without a giving it much thought.

People with a conservative approach to politics usually have a more personalized view of the world. They are ready to defend themselves individually in a situation where there is a threat; they have a greater sense of economic independence, and they have their own individual feelings about religious liberty. They feel less responsible for the welfare of people outside their group.

Liberals usually see these challenges from a more inclusive perspective involving the entire community. Their first thought is how this problem can be dealt with in a manner that will protect everyone’s safety with firearms, job security, and the rights of non-religious people. Their orientation is more reflective of the entire country.

People of the left often feel the need to defend the role of government to deal with critical issues. Progressives generally believe in a collectivist approach. They view government as a positive instrument that can promote everyone’s welfare. There is often an emphasis on helping those who can’t help themselves. Government is a friend to people on the left. Without it they would not be able to build the kind of society they envision.

People of the right, however, have a different relationship with government. So much of their agenda is aimed at eliminating some government action. Conservatives would rather “go it alone” without restrictions. There is a built-in suspicion among conservatives with any proposal that involves government action. The view from the right is that government is a necessary evil that usually subtracts from human freedom. Their continuous message is that government doesn’t work very well.

Liberals generally believe that there are some things that are good for all of us such as environmental standards. Conservatives often disagree with this approach because they resist being controlled by any agencies that might limit them. This factor was apparent as right-wing groups generally supported disassembling of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Trump Administration’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Change Agreement in 2017. There continues to be a strong preference on the right to be free from cumbersome rules, not being held back by restrictions or unreasonable regulations. This yearning for independence will likely become even more important as the climate change issue becomes more critical to human survival.

***

Both conservatives and liberals have a prescribed view of how to fix society. It is as though each has an opposing pair of ideological glasses that determines how they see a particular problem and how they think the problems should be resolved. Each, of course, believes strongly that their general approach to policy-making is best.

On the right there is a conviction that individuals should be responsible for their own welfare. Society has no particular obligation to subsidize or provide special services to those who are in distress just because they made poor choices in the past. Each person is free to act on their own, to abide by their own decisions, and not expect any government aid to rescue them from their own personal problems:

• Those who don’t want to work hard don’t deserve a good-paying job.

• Individuals who don’t save part of their income will not be able to retire.

• Personal health care is an individual concern, not a government responsibility.

Conservatives generally believe that we must live by our own choices and not expect to be bailed-out by society. If we don’t work hard, save our money, or provide for our own health care, we should not expect any special treatment by the rest of society. If a person wants to be lazy, spend all their money and not take care of themselves – they must accept the consequences of your choices.

In addition, people on the right opt for freedom and oppose most government regulations, subsidies and protection because it upsets the laws of supply and demand that govern human interaction in the natural world. The assumption is that individuals live in a natural state and they should be free of artificial rules set up by some public bureau or agency. Whenever conservatives think of a good society, they automatically think of a free society where individualism is valued and prized. They concede that life has a few rough edges, but that we are all better people when we take full responsibility for our own actions.

On the left the focus is on the whole of society enhancing the life of individuals by providing critical services everyone needs for the good life. The focus here is to make it possible for people to prosper without the fear of economic chaos, physical harm, or a spiritually-numbing life. The goal is to minimize the sharp edges of human existence with public services such as free health care, a minimum wage, and a clean environment. For example, there is a belief that government should step in to:

• Prohibit discrimination based on race, gender, ethnicity, or national origin.

• Establish and enforce environmental standards for clean air and water.

• Protect individual choices as it relates to family planning or sexual preference.

There is also an assumption on the left that everyone deserves a second chance even when they’ve squandered past opportunities. There is an egalitarian mentality that the needs of society must be addressed so all gain an equal benefit. The most important follow-up question for liberals is how to apply a solution that solves the problem for the greatest number of people.

But there are classical criticisms of both the left and right that seem to be everlasting. Throughout history the following comments have been made again and again.

A Poor People’s Conference

Perhaps the questions of expanding the so-called welfare state and the threat of political violence are two of the most volatile issues in American politics. Nearly everyone has a strong reaction to these topics. When the two are combined, there is the potential to activate a broad range of division between the left and the right.

Imagine you are the governor of one of the fifty American states and that the following scenario has unfolded on a Saturday evening: welfare recipients from throughout the state have converged on the state capitol for a weekend of meetings and discussions concerning proposed reduced welfare payments in the government budget. Groups of several thousand men and women are being housed in local school gymnasiums on cots. Their transportation to the capitol has been paid by local governments.

Leaders of the welfare group contend that public assistance payments have been cut by massive amounts. All of their discussion centers on the proposed welfare payment schedule, which was announced two weeks ago. Standard monthly grants for the coming year have been cut by ten percent. After these reductions have been made, the state will have one of the lowest public assistance schedules in the nation.

The delegation of welfare recipients argues that they cannot maintain their families on this proposed schedule. They charge that the state is taking food from their children's mouths to balance the budget. Most have come to the conference in an angry mood to protest and to find some means to restore the payments to the previous level, which was considered by some to be below the poverty level. Accountants in state government estimate that the budget would be substantially out of balance if the cuts were restored. Federal welfare funds have been exhausted for the year. The question has been reduced to two choices:

(1) restoring welfare payments to the previous schedule at the expense of many other basic programs in the state, or

(2) holding the line on ten percent budget cuts in all state departments, including the Department of Public Assistance.

Leaders of the state legislature and the governor have sympathized on many occasions with the welfare clients, but have stood firm on the position that all budgets in the state must be trimmed to accommodate the loss of anticipated revenue for the coming year. According to one veteran legislator:

We all have to tighten our belts during a recession to balance the budget. All state employees are unhappy with the outlook for next year, but they just have to bear with us. Just yesterday, representatives from the Highway Department contended that they really needed an increase to maintain our highways at present safety standards. Members of the State Board of Higher Education came in last week and said they feared nearly irreparable harm to every university in the state. The list goes on and on, but we can't play favorites. If we restore welfare payments to their previous levels, many state employees would receive drastic cuts in their salaries, and over 200 jobs would be eliminated so the budget could be balanced. I know it will be difficult to live on the reduced sums. We may be able to do something about it later if revenues pick up during the year. Presently, we are looking into the possibility of shifting some of the welfare costs to local churches and civic groups. Perhaps it might be better if local charities could help solve some of their own community problems.

This past month, the state legislature acted on a new tax package which would cut personal income taxes and corporate taxes in an effort to stimulate the sagging economy. The entire tax plan will be referred to the people for a vote next month. Most major economic groups have endorsed the tax reform – it is expected to pass by a wide margin.

Spokespersons at the Poor People's Conference are well aware of the economic situation, but they maintain that the new welfare schedule is unacceptable. This is the second downward revision of welfare payments in recent months. The general feeling in the group is that the present level is far below poverty standards, and the new lower level of payments would endanger the health of thousands of children across the state. A welfare mother from the largest city in the state brought the conference to a standing ovation when she asserted:

I will not stand still while the state reduces my family to the status of a public liability and an economic problem to be resolved by local handouts. We cannot exist on crumbs thrown to the poor and still maintain a decent home for our children. Why should you and I go home quietly and accept this starvation status when there are public employees at the upper level in the state who are making $250,000 a year? If the state needs more money, why don't they raise income taxes on those people who ride around in big cars? We have a right to live just like everyone else. Other people in the state receive payments and subsidies from the public treasury without a stigma. Why do we have to beg to receive money to feed and clothe our families? I will not let my children go to bed hungry just so this state can balance their damn budget. This is serious! If we don't get a restoration of just and equitable payments, I say we should go down fighting. If the governor and legislature don't answer our plea in the next hour, let's move into the area around the buildings and break every window we can find!

At this point several thousand welfare recipients begin milling around the many state buildings on the capitol mall. The mood of the crowd is angry. Undercover members of the state police on the scene conclude that loss of life and property is imminent if a solution is not found in the next hour. The first question that comes to your mind is how you can resolve this conflict without allowing events to get out of control.

As governor, you must work quickly, because in less than one hour there may well be a violent confrontation in the center of the capitol mall. Everyone is looking to you. Are you ready to take action immediately? Maybe you should talk it over with someone before you act – but who is available? Remember this is a Saturday evening (a lot of political crises occur on Saturdays and Sundays). Your regular advisors are not in town; the legislature is not in session. Who could you contact during the next hour? As far as you know, nothing like this has every happened before in your state.

To add to your problem, you are also facing re-election in less than three months. What you say and do will certainly become an issue. Whatever you do will probably become a campaign issue. This could be the topic that decides your political future. If this situation gets out of control, your political career may be over. You have to make the right decision and be able to defend it. It’s times like this when you feel really alone!

It won’t be long before the media finds out about this situation. They’ll bring in TV cameras and the welfare receipts will make a statement and you will be asked to respond.

Your press secretary comes into the office and reminds you that there are four members of the legislature (2 Democrats and 2 Republicans) who happen to be in a meeting across the capitol mall. In the absence of any other state official, you decide to call them to your office for their advice. The four legislators have been outside on the mall and they understand the issue that is threatening public order. You invite them to sit down around a conference table and offer their advice. Which recommendation sounds the best to you: Legislator 1, 2, 3, or 4?

Legislator 1. Governor, you have human beings out there who need your help. If they cannot exist on the new schedule of welfare payments, then we must find the money to restore the cuts. The highways and state buildings can go without maintenance for one more year, but a child can't go without food. You have no choice but to walk out there and give them a solemn pledge that you will take the budget back to the legislature and restore those cuts. Just because they are on welfare doesn't mean that they have no rights! They are people; they shouldn't have to beg for handouts – they have dignity! We have the resources to feed and clothe them; we have a moral obligation to find a solution that will provide them with their basic human needs.

Legislator 2. Governor, this problem has been growing more severe in recent years and I was afraid it would come to this. But now that we have this situation, we must respond in an equitable manner so that the problem is resolved and no one is injured. I see this as a three-step process. First, you must convince them that nothing can be done right now because the legislature is not in session. Second, they must recognize that violence will hurt their cause because the public and the legislature will surely turn against them. And third, tell them that you will call a special session of the legislature for next Wednesday morning, and that you will devote your full energies to finding a solution to the problem. If that is agreeable, I recommend that you appoint their leader as a spokesperson to address the special session of the legislature on Wednesday.

Legislator 3. Governor, you have no choice but to deploy the State Police and National Guard as quickly as possible to protect property and lives. Inform the leaders of the welfare group that you will take their concerns under advisement, but that no decision can be made under the threat of violence. If you don't act resolutely today you will lose control over the entire situation, including the state legislature. In all likelihood, there is little or nothing that can be done to help these people, but right now you must defuse this situation and let these people know that they cannot riot for the purpose of altering the state budget. There is an election coming up in three months; the proper channel for this group is to take the issue to the people. Right now, tell them to disperse and go home.

Legislator 4. Those people don't deserve a response from you any more than a street gang that was trying to overturn the government. They’ve been living off this state for years; some of those people don't want to work and they think the threat of violence will make us raise their monthly dole. If they really wanted to help their families they could get a job. I say send the State Police and National Guard out there with a warning to get off state property in 15 minutes or get arrested. You can't be soft on a group like that – they're dangerous people! This is a good chance to round them up and put them away. If you don't get tough with these people, other radicals will hear about it and they'll storm the capitol. You and I both know that terrorists must be behind this – you have to stop them now!

Which of the four statements would you accept if you were governor: 1, 2, 3, or 4?

Read the four choices again and consider each of the points raised by the four legislators. Choose the one statement that comes closest to your opinion. Remember those are real people out there that will be affected by your decision. Also keep in mind that you will need to defend your choice during your re-election campaign. Whatever happens out there will reflect on you. It’s entirely possible that the state police may get carried away and fire at the protesters. Someone could get wounded or even killed. But you are the governor and you alone can decide how to resolve this problem.

Stop reading and indicate your choice of advice from the legislators – 1, 2, 3, or 4? Rank-order your choices with the first being the most acceptable and the last being the least acceptable. In the space below, write down your reasons for making those choices.

____

____

____

____

Keep in mind that you want to avoid violence but you also need to defend your decision. In your mind, jot down the points you will make in a brief statement that you will make on television this evening to explain your actions as governor in this crisis. You will have to address the question of whether the state should respond to the threat of violence. Your reasons should be defensible to the citizens of your state. Stop for a moment and think of what you will say.

As you may have guessed by now, the choices that were presented to you as governor were classic examples of opposing opinions of the left and right. The major purpose of this simulation was to provide an opportunity for you to evaluate your own political attitudes and to decide where you might fit on the political spectrum.

In real life there is often a need to act under pressure. That’s when your basic values surface and cause you to act. Did you feel any pressure? Where you surprised by your reaction? After reading through the recommendations of the four legislators, it should be apparent that all four major non-revolutionary views were represented. Consider how each responded to the three fundamental questions stated earlier:

• What is the nature of humanity?

• How should the institutions of society be constructed?

• Which political strategies should be employed?

Pause and reflect; search through your memory of the four opinions and through your own mind. Where does each of the legislators stand on the political spectrum? Which of the four is closest to your political orientation?

Legislator 1. Here is the radical who is primarily concerned with human needs first. There is a great faith in humanity, but a lack of patience for the political system that has placed the poor at such a great disadvantage. The radical takes the side of the poor people against the welfare system and the state leaders.

Legislator 2. The liberal wants to help the poor, but is also concerned about maintaining the integrity of the system. There is an effort to resolve the problem within the law by bringing the poor people into the regular political process. The liberal hopes to help the poor people within the system without a physical confrontation.

Legislator 3. The conservative has definite priorities: defending public property and maintaining order. There is an insistence that the poor people will never succeed until they go through proper channels as other citizens have done. The conservative defends the system against a group who has the potential to cause disorder.

Legislator 4. The reactionary is angry that the poor people would even try this approach because it violates the traditional procedures of law and order. There is a lack of patience for the poor as individuals and as a group. They are seen as lazy people who are trying to get something they don't deserve. The only answer is to teach them a lesson in law and order. The reactionary sees the conflict as an assault on the governmental system that must be repelled.

If you are wondering what the revolutionaries would have done in the situation, consider the following:

• Revolutionary radicals would have armed the poor people and led them in a violent revolution against the state government.

• Revolutionary reactionaries would have fired on the poor people and used the violent situation as a rationale to impose martial law.

The Poor People's Conference and its aftermath illustrates that the political spectrum can be an important tool for understanding the many dimensions of politics. Real political situations do, in fact, have some predictable, philosophical choices. Not only does the spectrum help us to categorize political philosophy, but more importantly, it gives us some understanding as to why people have such different orientations in politics. And in this case, it may have given you additional understanding of your own point of view.

Take a moment to remember how you reacted to the simulation. Did your views reflect the ideology of your friends, family or ethnic background? Do your feel good about your choice of action? How do you think the public would respond to your actions?

Was there anything special about your particular views on this subject? How do you feel about folks who receive welfare payments from the state? Is it every justifiable to use violence to change public policy? Has any of your family or friends ever been on welfare? Which factor was most important in determining your choice?

Questions for You

1. Why do you think people use political labels to categorize each other? Do you use the words “liberal” or “conservative” often? Which terms are perceived as being the most favorable in your particular group? Which words would not use to classify your own point of view? Why?

2. Why does the author feel that defining the nature of humanity is at the heart of every political doctrine? Historically, what was the earlier view of human nature in most parts of the world? Why was that view held? Which parts of the world are those views still held?

3. Survey the various positions on the issue of the inherent faith in humanity. Why do you think there is so much disagreement between these competing positions? Do you agree that this question is one that every constitution writer must answer before writing the document? Why or why not?

4. To what extent does the design of American political institutions reflect a wide section of the political spectrum? (Think the three branches of government and the length of office for members of the House and Senate, the President, and the life terms for members of the Supreme Court.) Do you think the writers of the Declaration of Independence or the American Constitution were radicals, liberals, conservatives, or reactionaries? Be sure to look at each document separately and consider the political events of the time.

5. Interpret the following statement: “It is a logical step in politics to design one’s strategies to fit one’s political goals.” Do you see any examples in current politics where the strategies and goals of moderates, activists, and extremists have been matched inappropriately? If so, what are they?

6. Why is competition such an important theme on the right side of the spectrum? How does this reflect the perceived nature of humanity, and the probable reaction of other people in conflict situations?

7. Why do you think liberals are willing to share scarce resources and aid those who are in need? What would be the likely conservative response to the “Let’s share everything” proposal from liberals? What would be your overall reaction to the liberal’s proposal? How does this reflect your basic political values?

8. Which of the four legislators’ recommendations would come closest to your decision if you had been the governor during the Poor People’s Conference? Why did you choose that response? Do you think that your views would be acceptable to the citizens of your state? Why is it so difficult to find a solution in this type of situation?

9. As governor, what particular points would you make in your prepared television remarks? After considering the theme of your speech, do you think you would have improved your chances for re-election? Why or why not?

Where do you fit on the Political Spectrum?

After you have reviewed the three eternal questions. search out your own response to each of the philosophical enquires. In each case, cite examples from your own life to support your general conclusion. Write down your answers to the following three sets of questions.

1) How much faith do you have in humanity? Do you usually trust people to do the right thing most of the time? Are most people generally good or bad? How strongly to you feel about the general nature of humanity? How much do these values guide your political actions?

2) Given the nature of humanity, how would you design our political, economic, religious, educational or social institutions? Should we provide more or fewer choices for people in their daily lives? Which changes would you make in our government, economy, churches, educational or social structure? What major changes would you make in how individuals are treated in society?

3) Which political strategies would you justify in society? Are democracies generally the best form of government? Is there ever any excuse to use force against individuals who do not obey the law? Are there ever any justifications for disobeying the law? Is revolution ever justified?

After reviewing the three “eternal questions,” where would you place yourself on the political spectrum? Do these questions help you analyze your own political values? In your judgment, what other factors should be considered in your particular case?

Feel free to forward this chapter to a friend or relative.