Talk Elections

I am not sure, this is the right thread, but Ive been wondering:

Why are there so relatively few parties (in multi party systems) covering the social conservative/ economic left position?

Social liberal/Economic left and SoCon/Economic Right are the standard combos.
Economic Right/ Social Liberal is fairly common - half the Liberal parties  in Europe belong to this group.
But SoCon/ Economic Left almost never seems to get off the ground. It is a fairly large group of people who have that combination of beliefs in most Western societies, especially among blue collar workers, so why doesn't it "produce" more parties?

(I know you could argue, that some SocDem parties are somewhat SoCon, but still, this is not "the real deal".)

Don't a lot of the "far-right" European parties basically fit in with that?

The idea that the quadrant that some on-line quizzes use is the nec plus ultra in terms of accurately describing the possible ideological positions one could take within a given context, is obviously a little bit misguided.

That said, the Christian Democratic parties of Western Europe are traditionally dedicated to 'achieving the goals of the Left trough the means of the Right.'

lolno

A little condescending...

The idea that you can place ideological positions along a socio-economic and a valuebased axis is derived from political science and not invented by internet posters. It covers most of the ideological positions of modern Western politics and is a useful descriptive and analytical  tool.

Regarding the right wing populism with a genuinely left wing economic policy it is actually quite rare. A Danish trade unionist Preben Møller Hansen established a party with this combination called "Common Course" in the late 80s (he was a sailor by trade), but never got more than about 3-4% in the polls, when the party was most popular. You could probably find other examples, but none that I can think of top of my head, so it cant be that many.

Christian Democrats are almost always centre-right on economics in practice. So again, not the "real deal". FF in Ireland fits the bill slightly better, but where too centrist on economics even in their most leftwing periods.

I completely agree.In the UK such a party could easily win dozens of seats in South Wales and the North of England, in areas like Liverpool or Hull. Frank Field would be an awesome PM.
Even though I'm a Right-Liberal I prefer Left-Conservatives as they're not utterly logically Inconsistent as I feel many Left-Liberals are.

Russian KPRF: Left on the economy (nationalisation, progressive taxation, etc) while opposing gay rights, abortion and supporting capital punishment.

Because that pretty little chart that has become so absolutely and utterly ubiquitous on the internet does not actually represent any kind of reality. Political parties represent interests, in one way or another, and that's how they win votes (or don't).

Are you suggesting that few people find such a position to be in their interest?

My impression is social conservatives are generally more traditionalist and authoritarian than most people, and those who are left-of-centre on economic issues are especially more willing compared to other groups when it comes to codifying their stringent interpretations of morality. However, the normatively conformist folks in an economically centrist or right-of-centre society are not going to vocally advocate for left-wing goals unless they become convinced such an agenda is legitimized by an urgent higher calling or a serious religious mandate (e.g., liberation theology in Latin America).

That is to say, in a place like the States a lot of social and classical liberalists, social democrats, and democratic socialists seem to be relatively non-conforming - not caring enough about traditions and social norms to enforce them all using state coercion, whereas the socons and some of them pseudo-libertarian types really do care enough to make many tenets of their respective cultures into law. The ones with leftist sympathies on economic matters are conservative on most issues - not just "social" ones - hence they go along with a mixed economic agenda and perhaps utilize community service and charitable donations (which are culturally approved of) rather than politics (which would be a deviant break from old, tried-and-true methods) as their outlet for compassion?

It would be the socons with right-of-centre views who would usually not have their own parties in a world where socialist policies are the well-established norm. The capitalists amongst socons, in their conservative political mindset, would ally with mainstream factions rather than break off on their own to form some kind of radical alternative. The changes to society they want have to stay within the bounds of traditional norms and policy goals. Likewise, in a sufficiently secular society, socons would be anti-religious even as they treat their views with reverence and tend to think of folks as fitting into hierarchies of superior and inferior positions. Or is there a better explanation?

Edit: This would also account for Pingvin's observation. In Russia some conservatives and many reactionaries adhere to Marxist-Leninish or Stalinish views on the economy - their yearning for tradition and restoration of the good 'ole days involves a throwback to aspects of Soviet rule as opposed to what the paleoconservatives here conjure up in their minds about the States' past.

I'm suggesting that such a position is basically fictitious. The whole quadrant business is fun and all, but it doesn't reflect political (or any other kind of) reality.

Sure it is more difficult to place entire parties.  But then those compasses are mostly meant to help individuals place themselves relative to others.

The arbitrary divide between the "social" and  the "economic" has always irritated me.

The political compass is one of the worst things to ever happen to political discourse. People should really stop trying to make it apply to real life.

This is not about some damn internet compass. It is about the two axis - the value based  and the socio-economic, that political scientists use to describe attitudes to political issues. If you combine them you get four positions. This distinnction is based on polling of people. So real life opinions translate into the four positions. Not the other way round. Stop this internet compass nonsense.

Katter's Australian Party?

     But the compass is itself a simplistic way of viewing the world, as if every position can be broken down into left vs. right or libertarian vs. authoritarian, with utter homogeneity in either camp. The Nazis supported some policies that were "economically left", but their rationale for espousing these policies was in no way left-wing.

The workers emancipation discourse would hardly come in opposition to other kinds of emancipation. Such a position is fated to fringe groups. My country is probably one of the few places this can work. The average Brazilian is a social-democrat ultra-traditionalist. As ever, this kind of thought is linked to heavy christian influences, as if It was a compromise between christian-democracy and the christian left.

As for the cute graphs, they fail to realize that politics is about goals, not about policies. That moral-politics chart was the only that tried to deal with this, but I can't find It anymore.

Not really a major party though.

In fact the older version of the Nationals used to be like this.

What you call social issues are usually just part of politics to the extent that they are important for identity. In fact, I'd say the US is one of relatively few places (in the West at least) where this is an important part of the political divide.

Immigration and law and order plays this role in most European countries with a clear divide between hardliners and softies. Preferring a tough line on those issues is certainly important for the identity of many working class males.

I don't know enough about Sweden to say if you fit this pattern, but in Denmark the divide between "social"/value based issues and socioeconomic ones is very clear. A party like Det Radikale Venstre (Social Liberals) is basically a club for those that are left wing on value based issues and right wing on economics, while the Danish Peoples Party is the exact opposite.

Is the DFP as pro-welfare as made out to be ? After all, they backed the right's economic policies pretty loyally.

Most of the time the Conservative-Liberal VK government wasnt particulary right wing on welfare issues, but its true that DPP voted for some cuts in the final phase of the government to keep it in power, since they knew their influence would more or less disappaer if it fell. Of course all right wing populists prioritize value issues/social issues above welfare, but DPPs principal position is "old school" social democratic welfare policies, which attracts a lot of unskilled workers, who agree with them on immigration and "law and order".

I am not saying they are not hypocritical to a certain degree.

I see. I asked because, here in France, our very own far-right party (which has nothing to do with the DFP, of course) has recently rebranded itself as the party of the protection of welfare State and public services. However, if you have a look at its actual program, there is nothing really similar to a left-wing policy. The FN is the perfect proof that economically statist doesn't mean economically left-wing.

The right-wing position in Denmark, IIRC, is to NOT raise the highest tax rate in the whole world. So supporting that isn't particularly right-wing. :P

That depends on whether you use the economic or the value-based scale to determine the left / right dichotomy.

But I agree that the term right wing populism is rather meaningless. If thats your point.
In Denmark people from the old Fremskridtspartiet, which was Libertarian, changed rather effortlessly into Social Democrats/welfare populists shortly after the founding of DFP in 1995. Which shows that economic policies are not central to those types.

Examples:

Many Eastern European (and most Russian) left-wing parties. KPRF and "Motherland" most probably would be considered economically left (KPRF far-left) but socially far-right by European standards. Left-wing conservatism (as well as left-wing nationalism) is common in post-Communist countries. Striking examples are Polish "Samoobrona" and PiS and Bulgarian "Attack"; AFAIK some Eastern European social democratic parties also tend to be more socially conservative than right parties.

Some christian democratic parties (best examples probably are Chilean PDC and Dutch Christian Union).

Maybe some European far-right parties ("True Finns", Italian MSI, French FN under Marine).

Maybe also some orthodox commies like Greek KKE (on some issues).

And yes, I understand that there may be disagreements on what should be considered "economically left" or "right", "socially conservative" or "liberal".

I would say that the Finnish party named "True Finns" is just what you're looking for. It's economically left-wing but in the same time it's very conservative party. Badly most of it's leftism can be seen as pure populism and looking back in the "good old days" when the government was more interventionist in economics.

This is quite common in the Middle East. The Salafi party in Egypt is a good example. Iran(especially in the first few years after its revolution) pretty clearly qualifies.

Well, there's the Australian Labor Party.  :P  Well, not really, but they really are quite slow in terms of moving with the times.  And there are some really socially conservative people in the ALP.  But there are some far right parties in Europe as well that are economically leftish:
The True Finns.  (according to wikipedia.)  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Finns (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True_Finns)
Arguable, the French FN (have a look at this page) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Le_Pen#Ideology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marine_Le_Pen#Ideology)
The Danish People's Party http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_People%27s_Party#The_popularity_of_DPP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_People%27s_Party#The_popularity_of_DPP)
The Swedish National Democrats. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Democrats_%28Sweden%29 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Democrats_%28Sweden%29)

But I guess that ALP is socially liberal in comparison with Liberal and National parties coalition (so it is still relatively socially liberal by Australian standards). Am I right?

Yes in aggregate(though with individual exceptions).

A more comprehensive list of Parties
Australian Labour, on stuff like Migration
Australian Democratic Labour
True Finns
Danish People's Party
Sweden Democrats
Dutch Christian Union
Swiss Evangelical People's Party
Swiss Christan Social Party (though that appears to be more of a socially liberal-Christian-sing Kum Bay Yah round a fireplace style group)
The Russian Communists
Some of the Italian leftist Democrats
Tommy Douglas himself
Chilean Christian Democrats
There's probably a few more that I don't know of...

And this party would have traction too. I'd have many disagreements with them, but a large percentage of our population is socially conservative and centrist on economics. They would come off as highly authoritarian and probably not do to well, but if they made up a party, they'd have a solid base and about 30-40% of the nation supporting them. My ideology is pretty much the opposite of them though.

The Australian Labor Party is as close to the Democratic Party as any party in the world.

It seems like Fiscally centrist/Socially Conservative is much more common.

Definitely true in Western countries, but hardly correct in the rest of the world.

Robert Fico?


lol Frank Fields is the example of that? Do me a favour.