Friends are Electric

I have never made direct mention of them before, yet I constantly have been discussing the foolishness of their ideology.  And of the many undesirable direct consequences of their ideology. And now a direct attack by those who seek to destroy what for hundreds of years, perhaps thousands, citizens of the world have fought for.

The right to self determination.

This is sparked by an exceptionally ignorant editorial in this week’s issue of Imprint, the University of Waterloo student newspaper.   The editorial was titled No government is good.

What, exactly, is so wrong headed about this argument?  The first and most important problem is the argument that a non-functioning government is the best form of government, as though the people we elected to govern our nation are not up to the task  of it.

This idea has its source in a couple of deeply flawed ideas.

The first is the confusion between self interest and disinterest.   The former being what modern economics demands we operate solely by.  The later which democracy functions by.  Certainly economics is an interesting field of the social sciences, as important as any other, but it alone does not have the rights and responsibilities to run government, or any type of government policy.  Human beings are not solely self-interested beings, they are an irreconcilable combination of self-interest and group-interest.

Irreconcilable.  Combination.  Digest what that means for a moment.

Both factors are important for a functional human being.  Leave self interest for where it is best, and leave government to disinterest.  Society functions not based on the wild swings of the market but rather on the interactions of the human beings that make it up.  Interactions which do involve the buyer-seller relations described by economics but also the family, friends, neighbour, etc. relations.   When determining government policy, we must not enter with the thought “How can I get the best deal for myself,” but rather “What policies and practices are going to benefit society as a whole most.”

Ethics.  Operating for the greater good rather than the personal good or the private good.  When I am done school, self interest says that I should no longer care about education (unless I have children).  Group interest tells me this is the highest level of foolishness.  For social reasons as well as economic.  Certianly the old adage that the youth are the future does hold true and influences this, as employees and future employers as an economic argument but, more importantly for the fabric of society, education is the process by whch we train the next generation of citizens to act in the ethical fashion.

The second source of this ignorant argument is the corporatist.  The cult of the professional.

The ideology, which I am unsure if the writer even knows he subscribes to, is the principle that any task should be left to professionals and that the untrained cannot have an opinion, or an opinion which has an effect on the final outcome, about any topic which they themselves have no professional training or knowledge in.  Corporatism has its place, having an MBA decide the direction of pure scientific research would be foolish, since the MBA has no skills to help them.  Where corporatism is most dangerous is in government.

In government, corporatism has two important outcomes.  The first is that government must be run by professionals.  The environment ministry must be run by environmental scientists, since science is unbiased and impartial.  But are the scientists themselves biased?  And since they are scientists, they have no right to discuss policy with the natural resource departments, since environmental science is not the same as earth science.  And neither are the same as human resources, or finance or transportation.  Never mind the fact that all of these departments can be horribly interrelated to such a degree that any single specialist would never be able to see the big picture, the possible outcomes for other departments.  No, if you are not a professional in the field then your opinion has no validity.

Of course, the parliament itself is dominated by nonprofessionals.  The people elect it, and the people are not professionals in the art of government.   This is either solved by having professionals select government or by having the people select from a list of certified professionals.

Either case, our right to self determination goes out the window.   Which is the second important outcome.  We lose our right to govern ourselves.

Which is what the article is all about.  We have no right to determine how we want our society to be governed.  We are to be reduced to a passive role where the only vote of any consequence is which brand of toothpaste we purchase and from which store.   A mere mockery of democracy where societies interest is confused with the interest of large companies.

This morning, in my mailbox, was this delightful message from our local Member of Parliament, Peter Braid.  Before I continue and, so to speak, remove the muzzle on myself, I should point out that in the grand scheme of things, Peter Braid has done a fine job here in Kitchener-Waterloo.  He is, as far as I can tell, not the problem with the Conservative Party of Canada (CPC).  However, it is difficult to really determine things for sure since Mr. Harper keeps all of his MPs quite quiet most of the time.  The problem with the CPC is Mr. Harper’s autocratic leadership style.  That, however, is a low hanging fruit for another time.

The main message reads:

In these tough economic times, standing up for families is more important than ever.  The Conservative Government is delivering on its commitments to families.

We understand that everyone is stretching to make ends meet.  Our Government introduced measures that give families a break, long before the global recession hit, and now Canada’s Economic Action Plan is making sure families get the support they need.

We have delivered a new child tax credit, the Universal Child Care Benefit and a break for families that enroll their kids in amateur sports.

The marriage penalty in the tax system has been removed.

Registered Education Savings Plans have been strengthened, so families can plan better for the future.

All of these measures have helped put Canada and Canadian families in a strong position to weather the storm, and set the stage for a promising future.

The Conservative Government is also helping young families get a head start on buying their first homes, by providing up to $750 in tax relief.  We’re also providing first-time home buyers with more flexibility to buy or build a home.  They can now withdraw up to $25,000 from RRSP savings to do so, an increase from the previous limit of $20,000.

These measures don’t just help first-time home buyers; they also stimulate our economy by boosting demand for housing, which is a key driver of economic activity in Canada.

The Home Renovation Tax Credit is an important foundation of Canada’s Economic Action Plan.  We are lending a hand to families who want to improve their homes as their most significant investment, and at the same time, giving a boost to tradespeople and businesses that produce and sell building materials.

This year, as we fight the global recession, families will be able to claim a credit for eligible renovations worth up to $10,000 and receive up to $1350 in tax relief.

Right across the country, Canadian families are benefiting from this tax relief by improving kitchens and bathrooms, building new decks, laying new carpet or even putting on new roofs.

This activity is putting contractors, carpenters, and all kinds other trades people to work.

It’s generating local business at everything from hardware stores to lumber yards.

In turn, the entire Canadian economy reaps the benefits.

The Home Renovation Tax Credit, and the other new investments we’re making to stimulate the economy, are designed to create and protect jobs during this period.

All these measures reflect our belief that by making life a little easier for families, we can build a stronger Canada.

I found this to be a laughable piece, and will now take you through it, paragraph by paragraph.

In these tough economic times, standing up for families is more important than ever.  The Conservative Government is delivering on its commitments to families.

While this is pure false populism and thus disgusting, there is technically nothing wrong with it.  It does, however, set the tone for this entire piece.

We understand that everyone is stretching to make ends meet.  Our Government introduced measures that give families a break, long before the global recession hit, and now Canada’s Economic Action Plan is making sure families get the support they need.

I’d call both of these points entirely false.  The first is certianly, the second might be a matter of opinion.

Firstly, I recall Mr. Harper saying something to the effect that Canadians should be buying stock right now, since it is such a good deal.  He said this during an election campaign after the crisis had really struck.  An election campaign which he ran largely without a platform, and thus, without a plan.  The fact is that the crisis really started to strike noticably a few weeks earlier than this, and to the best of my knowledge nothing was done about it for quite a few months owing to a prorougeing of Parliament.

It has been pointed out to me that technically, from an economist’s standpoint, a recession starts after two quarter years of negative growth.  So the recession would not have started until later than when things went bad.  I call nonsense on this point, if this is the argument the CPC is using then they have failed at communication.  Use regular style english, not professional jargon, when communicating.

We have delivered a new child tax credit, the Universal Child Care Benefit and a break for families that enroll their kids in amateur sports.

Amature sports are definatly a middle-class past time.  This is good for the middle-class, who were hit rather hard in the ongoing depression.  The only negative comment one can say about this is that it will not benefit those hardest hit.  This is a trend in CPC policy, and by extension in this pamphlet.  Moving on to tax credits.  A tax credit will only benifit those who would be paying taxes, if you are unemployed, you probably do not pay taxes.  Again, hardly helping those who need it most.

The marriage penalty in the tax system has been removed.

Now, until I read this pamphlet I did not know what such a thing was.  Apparently, to use their slant on the matter, it is descrimination against single-earner households who pay higher tax rates than an even split between the two with the same overall total wage.  Certianly such descrimination, which is what it is, should not be encouraged.  There may be issues regarding which persons work in a household which this solution glosses over, and I intend to find out more myself, but for now, I’ll give the CPC this one.  Well done.

Registered Education Savings Plans have been strengthened, so families can plan better for the future.

Good policy, but those who need assistance most lack money to save and are statistically less likely to educate their children.  Neither of these issues are addressed, granted, the later is a permanent problem and one can hardly blame the CPC alone for it.

All of these measures have helped put Canada and Canadian families in a strong position to weather the storm, and set the stage for a promising future.

This statement is true if you benefited from any of the above listed items.  If you were a middle-class family with money to invest and spend on leisure and had a single wage earner, you are benefiting greatly from these policies.  This does include a very large number of Canadians, and I will not take away from that.  However, one must remember that this is not everyone and that there are many Canadians who truly need assistance.

The Conservative Government is also helping young families get a head start on buying their first homes, by providing up to $750 in tax relief.  We’re also providing first-time home buyers with more flexibility to buy or build a home.  They can now withdraw up to $25,000 from RRSP savings to do so, an increase from the previous limit of $20,000.

Allowing people to use up any savings they may have to get the economy started up on the exact path that just lead to ruin, bravo.  Add more tax cuts which don’t help people who cannot afford a home or people who don’t pay taxes and you have more standard conservative policy.

These measures don’t just help first-time home buyers; they also stimulate our economy by boosting demand for housing, which is a key driver of economic activity in Canada.

Again: inflated housing prices help no one.

The Home Renovation Tax Credit is an important foundation of Canada’s Economic Action Plan.  We are lending a hand to families who want to improve their homes as their most significant investment, and at the same time, giving a boost to tradespeople and businesses that produce and sell building materials.

I’ve always disagreed that a home is an investment.  A home is the place you live and grow.  Perhaps it is idealistic of me, but I find it impossible to put a price on such a thing.  Much less allow it to cause intense inflation.  However, this does promote spending and does employ some tradespeople, so while I find this ideologically unpleasant, it may actually work.  Again, only if you already have money to spend and have any taxes left to pay after all these tax credits.

This year, as we fight the global recession, families will be able to claim a credit for eligible renovations worth up to $10,000 and receive up to $1350 in tax relief.

Right across the country, Canadian families are benefiting from this tax relief by improving kitchens and bathrooms, building new decks, laying new carpet or even putting on new roofs.

This activity is putting contractors, carpenters, and all kinds other trades people to work.

It’s generating local business at everything from hardware stores to lumber yards.

I won’t bother repeating myself on all this again.  It may work, but it doesn’t assist everyone in the country equally.

In turn, the entire Canadian economy reaps the benefits.

Time will tell, but I expect that it will have some benefits.  Just not equally across the board.

The Home Renovation Tax Credit, and the other new investments we’re making to stimulate the economy, are designed to create and protect jobs during this period.

All these measures reflect our belief that by making life a little easier for families, we can build a stronger Canada.

I won’t fault them on these last statements, this is just politician talk and any party would say the same.

In summation, the Conservative Party of Canada is behaving like a conservative party probably should.  I will not say that they do not have Canada’s best interest in their mind, since everything they have done does address the problems at hand, albeit in a round-a-bout and convoluted way which I find ideologically disagreeable.

I think my days of reading mail propaganda are over for a while.

Background: cbc.ca

Beyond that, especially the level of ignorance in comments.  My serious question is whether or not anyone reads anymore, or if they just have a knee jerk reaction and run with it.

Elections Canada decided that it was against religious freedom to force people to remove veils in public for the purpose of voting.  They would be required to reveal their face in private to an official prior to getting their ballot.  This was to prevent, for example, men seeing a woman’s face if she did not wish it to happen.  This was an enabling decision made to allow greater participation by every Canadian citizen.

And let me repeat: this was an interpretation of a longstanding law.  Not a new law.  Not rewriting laws.  This was the interpretation of the existing law.

What was announced today was the highly controversial policy to change the existing election laws to prevent this from happening.  I have theories about why such a policy might have been brought forward in the first place, but these are my own personal opinions about the matter and are irrelevant to present discussion.

So let us review the facts:

Elections Canada announces interprets existing law and decides that veiled voting is permissible in our democracy.  The Conservative Party of Canada presents a plan to change the law, realize that there is no will in the House of Commons, which was democratically elected by the entire country, to bring forth such a plan.  The Conservative Party of Canada kills the plan in a huge show of public relations.

An example people might understand:

What if it was illegal (impossible for it to be so, I would not support it) to vote with a cross showing.  Why, I don’t know.  Just say this was the case.  Would we be up in arms?  Yes.  Everyone in the country aught to be, I don’t know if they all would be, but I know that I would oppose such action.  Yes, are other issues with a veil.  No, I am not saying the situation is identical.  Or even related.  There are issues with veils, I honestly think there is a gender issue related to it.  But if a person wants to wear one, they should not be prevented from doing so.

Which brings us to the politics of it.

If the majority of the house does not want to pursue a piece of legislation, then (theoretically) the majority of Canadians do not want a piece of legislation.  We can debate whether or not our MPs represent us until the proverbial cows come home, it changes nothing (I know mine does not represent me) .

The Conservative Party of Canada is in minority government, which means there are more opposition members than government members.  They cannot do whatever they want, which is good for Canadians (the same can be said of any other party, minority governments are inherently much more democratic than majorities).

But I digress.  The point is: read to become informed, avoid knee jerk reactions, think, think, THINK.  An informed and thinking citizen is what this country needs, not clients.

Just when I thought I was free I get dragged back into it.

So I keep hearing the arguments that people `did not vote for a coalition.’  This is true.  The fact is that they did not vote for the Conservative party either.

We vote for a person, not a party.  Now, most of us do vote based on the party of our choice, however we must realise that our perceptions will not change the reality of our electoral system.  You did not vote for a coalition.  You also did not vote for the Liberals, the Conservatives, the Marxist-Leninist or the Bloc Quebecois.  You vote for a single person who is theoretically supposed to represent your ideas.

Of course, not even I do this.  But I am mature and reasonable enough to realise what my vote actually means.  Please people, stop pretending that intention colours the meaning of the vote.  No individual belief or thought changes that you vote for a person, not a party.

Now we must understand this.  Anyone saying that they did not vote for a coalition is stating a fact, yes, but it does not carry the meaning they wish it to.  They are only revealing their ignorance to our electoral system or, perhaps, merely stating the obvious.  No one voted for a coalition, no one voted for the Conservative Party, no one voted for the Liberals, just as no one voted for any party.

Its just the way our government works.

Now that Parliament has been suspended for a month, it is time to examine the entire crisis as a whole.

Rick Mercer had a number of intelligent things to say on the subject.  He is essentially saying that Harper screwed up and is now clinging to power, while Dion is hell-bent on having his revenge on the Conservative Leader.

Werner Patels is saying that the NDP and its supporters are the biggest losers in the crisis, since as a member of the coalition, no one cares what Mr. Layton has to say.

I have seen people on both sides of the debate call the opposite fascists.

And I’ve seen Americans trying to explain the crisis.

On the whole, I am glad we now have a break.  Although I wish that all parties would stop spewing lies all over the place.  I can now sit back and digest exactly what happened, and perhaps muse on the best way to solve it all.  I’m still hoping that everyone can work together, but I somehow doubt that will happen.

I have read a large number of peoples’ opinions on this.  That is all they are, opinions.  There is what is legally allowed and what people consider to be moral.  Lets work at separating the two.

From past writings, I am sure it is clear which side I appear fall on this debate.   I want a functional government, be it Conservative or coalition.  To be entirely honest, all of the parties working together would be the most idea, if unlikely, solution to our `crisis.’  I honestly do not care who gets to live on Sussex Dr., so long as they govern with respect and dignity.  Whether any of the current party leaders are even capable of that is another matter which I will not consider at this time.

I have tried to point out the facts on how our democracy works all week.  In keeping with this recent tradition, I am now going to defend Stephen Harper’s actions in suspending Parliament.

First of all, this is an entirely legal action.  There is no arguing this.  Just like there was no arguing that a coalition government was illegal.  Calling either of these fabrications results only in the person making the claim displaying their ignorance or their agenda.

The morality of this action, as the morality of forming a coalition government, is entirely up for debate.  Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.  However, I would say this is not an immoral thing to do.  Instead, I think that this was exactly what the situation called for.

Lets step back and examine exactly what suspending Parliament until the new year is going to do.

1. This will cool tempers.
   All MPs will have a chance to talk things over in detail, work out agreements if necessary, and perhaps even work together on a larger scale.  If Parliament were to continue now, harsh things could be said from emotion which were not meant.
2. The Canadian public can become better educated.
   All of the political parties have been streaming constant attacks on the opposing party for days now.  As far as I can tell, not one of these groups has actually been truthful about what is happening and what is legally able to happen.  Harper has been saying that a coalition is illegal and undemocratic, which is false, and I am sure Dion and Layton will be calling Harper a coward over todays decision.   Ideally this should stop and politicians can work to actually educate the public, rather than indoctrinating them.
3. MPs can ask their constituents what they think of any plans.
   My riding currently is represented by a Conservative who won by about 40 votes.  NDP+Liberal supporters make up a plurality in this riding.  He may be a member of the Conservative party, but I believe that he should do his best to determine what his electorate wants from him.  This advice goes for every MP in every riding.  The coalition is legal, but it is a change.  MPs deserve the time to consult with the people who they represent, both those who voted for them and those who did not, to see how the people feel.  Even though I did not vote for the Conservative candidate in my riding, I would be appalled if he ignored those in his riding just because we wear different political colours.  I already said that all of the parties working together would be the best solution in my mind.

I, however, doubt this is what will happen.  I fully expect that MPs will follow party lines on this, that all of the parties will spend the next two months filling the airwaves with the most horrendous lies and half-truths.  And when Parliament reconvenes, I fully expect nothing to have been solved.

Perhaps I am too cynical.  I know I will be in contact with my MP.  I expect the same from all other Canadians.  These are exciting political times, lets hope we do the right thing.

Its time to talk politics again.  This whole ‘crisis’ is really trying my patience.  Especially the ignorance of those who seem to speak the loudest.  So, it is now time to set the record straight.

For some reason, the Prime Minister Stephen Harper, has been able to convince the masses that coalition governments are both immoral and illegal.  This is an utter fabrication.  Truthfully, Harper should have a coalition in Parliament at this very moment, since his party does not have a majority of the seats.  Furthermore, if a coalition wishes to form and have power, it is fully able to.  This is how our government is supposed to function.  Stephen Harper can behave as though he has a majority as much a he wishes, but in reality he has a minority government, and a weak one at that.

There has been talk that Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe were in collusion prior to the election, and perhaps even the Liberal Party was involved.  I do not know if this is the case, however, judging by seat distribution, I can guess that this is not the case.  One merely has to look to Italy since the mid 1990s to understand why this is the case.

In Italy, they have a multitude of parties but two ‘cartels,’ organisations of multiple parties which run elections in such a way that their power base is maximised.  It works like this: In riding A, there are up to 6 parties which wish to be elected.  This is far too many parties for any to gain a clear advantage.  Parties 1-3 are some variant socialists, parties 4-6 are some conservative variant.  They all differ on the Left-Right and GAL-TAN axis, but they share similar ideals.  For instance, you could have a Communist, Socialist and Social Democratic party in one group, a Conservative, Christian Democrat and Neofascist/Neoconservative party in the other.  Riding A has a traditional (TAN) bias and favours economic conservatism, but there are a large number of Catholics and the youth are somewhat radicalised.  Parties 1-3 know that alone they will not ever win, so they form a coalition and run one candidate between them.  Although the right-tan bias nets parties 4-6 60% of the vote, they divide it equally, leaving the coalition of parties 1-3 with the seat.  This behaviour obviously necessitates the same kind of behaviour on the TAN-right, which forms its own cartel and, by these numbers, would win the seat.  If any party leaves either of the cartels, the vote splitting would reduce both the leaving party and the cartel by a significant number of seats.

Because the NDP ran against Liberals and the Bloc Quebecois in the Federal Election this October, I can be fairly sure that they were not talking to each other beforehand.  And even if they were, so what.  If GAL values would be better promoted by a single party group instead of multiple parties then so be it.  The difference in votes in many riding would mean a vastly different result if the Liberals and NDP were really working together to form a coalition in the ways which Plurality requires.

Conclusion thus far: by the methods which our Plurality functions, the NDP, Bloc and Liberals were not in collusion prior to the election, although they perhaps should have.  Even if they were talking before hand, this is entirely legitimate.  I can recall a day when there were two conservative parties in Canada, they went through similar motions before unifying to the much stronger and more functional party they have today.

Anyone in Canada over the last week will know what this is about.  The Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, issued an economic update to the budget he released last year.  The update’s purpose was to reflect the changing world economic situation and its effect on Canada.  Some information can be found here.

I am not going to say anything on the reaction to this, enough has been said.  However, I have not heard one particular argument as to why dropping the $1.95 per vote subsidy that each party gets to fund their operations.  The argument relates to our plurality system.

Like the United States and Great Briton, Canada runs on a plurality, rather than proportional, system.  This means that a candidate in a riding must only receive one more vote than the candidate with the second highest number of votes to be declared the winner in that riding and represent it in Parliament.  Even if 10 parties run and split the vote roughly equally, with one party receiving a few votes more than the others, that party gets the whole seat.  The other parties get nothing.  Except, of course, this subsidy.

It is a commonly known fact that in plurality based systems, votes are wasted.  What most people don’t realise is that they are wasted both ways.  Most people understand that if one party gets 40% of the vote, the second place one receives 35%, and a third party has 25%, then a full 60% of the people in that riding did not have their voices heard, since total popular vote doesn’t mean anything.  However, if there are three or more parties in a given riding, then every vote over the bare plurality of the second place parties vote count + 1 also counts to nothing, since the party already has been granted the seat.

Now, the person who’s vote was wasted on the winning side might not mind, since their vote might just as well have been one of the votes which allowed the candidate to win, but this still poses an interesting problem.  If the government is supposed to be democratically elected, yet in Canada’s roughly three party system up to 66% of the population could have no say in the formation of government.  (A truly frightening statistic is that, in such a three party system, a party can receive a majority if they get a bare plurality of about 34% in only 50% + 1 of the ridings, which works out to approximately 17% of the popular vote.)

So here is where the economic update comes in, specifically the fate of the $1.95.  So long as this subsidy exists then the otherwise wasted votes have meaning.  The Green Party may have gotten no seats, but they did receive a fairly large share of the popular vote, meaning they will receive a fair amount of money to keep their party alive to mount a campaign again another day.  By garnering roughly 7% of the national vote, they have proven that their platform has a level of support unheard of by most other niche issue parties.

I have seen a few comments around stating that the Conservative Party has the most to lose by this measure, and it is true that they will lose the largest dollar amount of all the parties.  However, they will be losing the lowest percentage amount compared to their total income intake in a given year.  Some have argued that the other parties should focus more on raising funds in other ways, especially donations.  My only thought on this is that a fiscally conservative party would likely have the wealthiest voter base.  There is nothing wrong with this.  Social Democratic parties like the NDP tend to focus more on those who would not be able to afford donations to political parties, while the Greens tend to be a party of the young, people who are using what money they have for schooling.  While these parties should probably focus more on fundraising, especially in light of this event, the fact remains that the Conservatives are better based to receive large amounts of funding from private persons.  We must remember that government must speak for everyone, not only those who can afford to keep their choice party afloat.

This issue, like so many others in Canadian democracy, should really not exist.  A diverse group of political parties ensures that all beliefs have the chance of being represented.   So long as a belief receives votes it is worthy of a continued existence, no matter if the people pushing it are willing or capable of funding it personally.  That is the true tragedy of this, Canada has a comparatively diverse political landscape when compared to other plurality countries.  This funding helps contribute to that, without it we would have fewer parties, fewer new ideas and a much more bland political culture.

I really wanted to keep from writing about politics here.  However, sometimes, we have to do things we do not necessarily wish to.  So here we go.

When people talk about the `Left’ and the `Right,’ they often are quite confused.  On the left they place socialists, greens, communists, social democrats and even others.  They claim the right is populated by liberals*, conservatives, fascists, Christian democrats and others.   They are not wrong, but to pretend that greens, social democrats and communists are the same is foolhardy.  And while many like to compare conservatives to fascists, there exists a world of difference between them.   The whole left/right system is nothing but confusing and, when used this way, useless.

Enter a second axis.  Surely we could use more, and this would further help us characterise political ideologies, however the added complexity is not necessary for an average citizen, only professional political scientists.   Our second axis refers to social policy, leaving the old left/right for economics.

On one side, you have liberals, greens and social democrats.  On the other you have communists, fascists, Christian democrats and conservatives.   The first is called `GAL,’ which stands for Green, Alternative, Libertarian.  The second `TAN,’ Traditional, Authoritarian, Nationalist.

This helps explain differences in ideology in a much more clear way than just using the old terminology of left/right.  GAL/TAN has another use, as well.  The Left/Right divide refers to traditional politics, where class differences were the key issue in elections.  The Left and Right defined an economic standpoint: a continuum from a totally free market to an entirely planned economy.  Of course, most parties were not at the extremes on this scale, but fell somewhere between.

New politics is much more based in social issues, rather than economics.  Here the continuum is between government authority and personal freedoms.  Rather than asking “How much taxation and income redistribution should the citizens face?”, new politics asks “How much control should the government have in peoples’ lives?”  A good example of this divide is if homosexuals should have the right to get married.  Traditionalists believe the answer is no, based on their beliefs, the past, and in many cases religious texts.  The Libertarians believe hat this right should be granted, since they feel the government has no place legislating how people live their lives.

Again, at the extremes, we have very few parties.  On one side, you would have an Orwellian dictatorship of perfect totalitarianism, on the other the government would cease to exist.  Each of these is as undesirable as a completely free market or an entirely planned economy.

Finally, the reason why this was necissary.   When we vote, we have to know what we are voting for.  Thinking that a party’s economic stance is the only important thing is foolhardy, just as ignoring it entirely would be.  Remember to take both new and old politics into consideration when we vote.  There is often nothing wrong with their policies on one axis, however, often there are things hidden on the other.

*A final note: A liberal is someone who believes in total freedom, much like libertarians.  In fact, the world outside of North America, where most democracies exist, use the world liberal where North Americans would use libertarian.  By these definitions, liberals are Right-GAL.  North American Liberals, on the other hand, are centrists, and tend to focus on compromise between the left and right, and usually tend to be on the GAL side of things.