More than Left or Right. The Complexities of Liberal and Conservative Politics
"Why don't Liberals get it?". We've all seen statements like this (or often worse) on TV and the Internet. The same has been said about Conservatives. It paints all 'Liberals' or 'Conservatives' in the same swath and unifies the group to a point where there is no free thought from any individual. This generalization is made to simplify a complex issue by making the concept easier to identify what the the individual is and what the 'others' aren't. When pressed, however, the individual will often state that they are a Centrist with either left or right leanings - it is everyone else who is so extreme.
This simplistic view of two - and only two - America's is leading to an entrenchment in politics where neither side knows how to compromise because they don't understand what views they share with one another.
Thinking about the current state of affairs more deeply, you might hypothesize that individual political views land on a spectrum with centrists and extremists on either side.
However, this still doesn't tell the whole story. Many Americans are so fed up with both parties that they look for other groups that appeal to their interests. Parties like Libertarians or the Green Party are fringe groups that don't necessarily fall on to the two dimensional spectrum. Therefore, we need to come up with a better model that shows where all Americans fall in the political landscape.
The Political Landscape Wheel is a more accurate representation of the volatility in American politics today. It not only incorporates all parties, but also identifies what 'establishment' politics stands for & identifies at what degree an individual might demand radical change. Imagine that every individual in America with his or her very unique political viewpoints lined up shoulder to shoulder along this wheel based on those unique views. Every individuals is just slightly more "left" or "right" than the two people standing directly beside them. Theoretically, infinite points of political preference are created on this wheel.
This model showcases the animosities that are plaguing the country; those that lay directly opposite (180 degrees) from where an individual lays will not share many political views with one another. That said, as you diverge away from 180 degrees the more likely you are to agree with a person politically. For instance, Globalist Democrats can likely find common ground with Globalist Republicans as well as Progressives but will wonder what planet the Alt-Right is from and brand them as Nazis or Racists. Conversely, Globalist Republicans have trouble understanding Progressives and often dismiss them as Socialist or Communist.
It should be noted that there was no 'Centrist' on this chart because frankly, it doesn't exist. A centrist in this respect would imply that the individual both agrees and disagrees with every policy proposed by all groups. You can't both be for international institutions (Globalist) and the absolute preservation of individual liberty (Libertarian). At some point you will have a preference and lean towards a point on the circle. Also, everyone is a Centrist in their own minds eye.
Lets begin to explore the traits that make up each block. These depictions are meant to be generalizations because, similarly to there being no true centrist, there are no true Democrats or Republicans; every individual has a certain degree of sway towards another block. Zooming in to a block down to the individual level, for instance, it would be tough to find and draw the line between Globalist Democrat and Progressive Democrat (or Democrat Progressive and Libertarian Progressive, etc... etc..).
Globalists:
The best way to characterize a block is to imagine a world where everyone had the same views and therefore governed the country that way.
Globalists value strong institutions and the preservation of the liberal international economic order. They prefer government structures that enable people and corporations to trade and prosper globally. They generally support open trade, easier movement of people, and strong international institutions—sometimes even envisioning a form of global federal governance.
Democrats:
Democrats tend to support strong national (and often international) institutions, but not a global federal superstate. They generally believe good governance means institutions should protect and advance the common well-being of citizens, using government mechanisms to do so.
Republicans:
Republicans also tend to support strong national (and often international) institutions, but not a global federal superstate. They generally believe good governance begins with the individual and that institutions should primarily defend rights and equality under the law.
A key distinction here is between equity and equality:
Equity frames citizens as having a shared stake in society—like participants or “shareholders”—and therefore being entitled to access the institutions and opportunities society provides.
Equality frames citizens as inherently possessing rights; prosperity and opportunity flow from protecting those rights.
In this framing, Democrats are more likely to view institutions as tools to promote equity, while Republicans tend to view equality (rights) as the foundation that institutions must protect. This difference can be understood as a contrast between active and limited governance.
Republicans may aim for equality but overlook the ways institutions and social behavior can disadvantage certain groups.
Democrats may aim for equity but underestimate the costs and unintended consequences of bureaucracy, including resentment that arises when institutions are created to counter other institutions or entrenched social behavior.
This subtle divide—equity versus equality—is presented here as a major driver of political division in the U.S.
Progressives:
Progressives typically prioritize equity and argue that the current establishment doesn’t go far enough—or actively blocks people from accessing opportunity. This group is often more focused on domestic issues than international ones. When progressives engage internationally, they often prefer institutions aligned with their values and may support economic protectionism alongside more open immigration policies.
Alt-Right / MAGA:
The alt-right / MAGA is nationalist at its core. That nationalism often leads to a form of “equality,” but primarily for those considered part of the in-group. In this view, governance is about preserving the nation’s identity and enforcing social cohesion. At its extreme, this can slide into race-based politics and/or fascism. Like progressives, this group is often more focused domestically than internationally; when it does engage internationally, it tends to favor aligned institutions, economic protectionism, and closed borders.
Libertarians:
Libertarians, in their purest form, reject the idea of a social contract between the individual and society. Government is seen primarily as coercion. A society run entirely on pure libertarian principles approaches anarchy, where individuals are responsible for their own safety and survival—and where fear and insecurity can dominate daily life.
The Controversial Convergence
The convergence between parts of the progressive and alt-right wings toward libertarianism may be the most controversial claim in this model. The argument is that, on some specific issues, these groups can arrive at similar policy positions for very different reasons. For example:
Both may support certain protectionist policies to preserve domestic industry.
Both may favor liberalizing drug laws through legalization or repeal.
Progressives leaning toward libertarianism may align more with anarchist traditions (for example, Kropotkin-style anarchism).