Simplicity is the prime requirement of any spatial political model because a complicated construct will never achieve widespread adoption. The political circle is almost as simple as today’s dominant left-right-only model. But it avoids the limitations.
Despite its surface simplicity, the new model is built on an intertwined set of underlying assertions. An apt analogy would be Newton’s second law, where a simple equation (F = Ma) relies on the complex insights of calculus and Keplerian astronomy.
Here’s a list the political circle’s key premises……
PREMISE ONE: political language is GENERATED BY a spatial model
This idea asserts that humans often approach their conceptual world through simple visual constructs. In other words, a hierarchy exists, in which spatial cognition precedes verbal and mathematical calculations. This principle might apply universally, or it might pertain only to specific pursuits. Premise One holds that it governs political thought.
Similar processes are not uncommon. The foundational impact of a simple spatial construct can be seen in Dmitri Mendeleev’s periodic table, where chemical analysis can’t be pursued without reference to its two-dimensional form. The principle also applies to corporate organizational charts, where management’s directives can only be instituted through its visual hierarchy.
Likewise, today’s language of partisan politics is generated by a horizontal line segment. This is how we define our conflicts ……
The concepts of left, center, and right conform to this one-dimensional model. In fact, they can’t be conceived without it. Unfortunately, the underlying logic of this spatial construct can be proven deficient. This tells us that every piece of terminology based on that model must be reconsidered.
PREMISE TWO: “POSITION” IS THE BUILDING BLOCK OF A POLITICAL MODEL
A “position” is the location of a point on some geometric form. In this usage, a political position matches the term’s use in GPS or in a team sport.
Political positions can’t be forced into a particular form. Instead, a model’s shape conforms to the natural distribution of all possible partisan positions. The left-right line isn’t a natural distribution of political viewpoints. Therefore, it distorts our language.
The two-dimensional model is an accurate distribution of positions. Useful distinctions are drawn when political questions are brought to it.
Note the terminology generated by this construct. Its language performs better under spatial analysis than terms generated by a one-dimensional model.
PREMISE THREE: There are two types of Truth
This concept will have its detractors, since intense debate surrounds the nature of truth. The circle’s assertion of two truth types follows thinkers like Thomas Aquinas and Soren Kierkegaard.
One type, objective truth, is the realm of pursuits like the physical sciences, and involves facts that can either be proven or disproven. The other, subjective truth, is found in religion, the arts, and mythology. Its truths are necessary for the structuring of society, but they can be neither proven nor disproven.
On the one-dimensional model, both types of truth were commingled on the same line, with no mechanism for drawing distinctions between them. This led to conflation in our collective discourse. It also caused the paradigm’s most basic terms – liberal and conservative – to become catch-all concepts …… too broad to provide useful definitions.
On the two-dimensional model, the two truth types migrate to separate axes. The vertical axis addresses a fundamental question about power. The horizontal axis answers another important question regarding our collective values.
By maintaining a location on the circle, and not on either axis (or elsewhere), each individual position compares the two types of truth.
PREMISE FOUR: GEOMETRY ESTABLISHES LIMITS WITHIN OUR POLITICAL BELIEF SYSTEMS
The vertical axis of the circle represents a fundamental question: “What form of power should the society adopt? (Answers range between centralized power and citizen-based power). The horizontal axis represents a separate question: “What values should we live by as a society? (Answers range from liberal values to conservative values).
These questions are linked. If one is prioritized more, the other will be prioritized less. For example, if someone decides that only the values question is important, their position will be located either on the right pole or on the left pole. Similarly, if a person decides that only the power question is important, they’ll be located either at the top pole or at the bottom pole.
Very few entities, like Julian Assange, are able to maintain a position directly on one of the four poles. Most political positions will combine their answers to the two fundamental questions in proportions that vary between 0% vs. 100% and 50% vs. 50%.
Premise Four makes an unprecedented statement about the two truth types: within each of us, a greater emphasis on the subjective questions of morality and conscience must dictate a lesser emphasis on objective questions of reason and metrics …… and vice versa. This geometric relationship exhibits qualities akin to a law of physics.
PREMISE FIVE: THE MATERNAL AND THE PATERNAL ARE IN PERPETUAL, PRODUCTIVE CONFLICT
A two-dimensional model releases the terms liberal and conservative from their conflated condition. Each concept can now be framed by its natural state: as a description of values.
The true nature of the term liberal gravitates toward maternal values like cooperation, consensus, and collaboration. In contrast, the term conservative orients toward the paternal with its emphasis on conquest, competition, and commerce.
In the western tradition, culture was long restricted to Yahweh-centric approaches like Christianity, Judaism, and Islam: Yahweh being a powerful, paternal force. Throughout human history, however, goddess figures have held prominent positions in many cultures. Therefore, many of our political battles in recent generations can be attributed to the “progressive” rise of these maternal values within a historically paternal culture.
Thus, today’s conflict between “the left” and “the right” represents an attempt to bring large-scale balance to our society in the same way that small-scale balance between the maternal and paternal existed within hunter-gatherer tribes.
Other premises might deserve inclusion on the above list, but these five are the best place to start in an attempt to challenge the political circle as a thesis. Any such effort would be inherently productive.