Editing Political spectrum (section)

== Other proposed dimensions ==
[[File:Political Compass standard model.svg|thumb|Two-axis political compass chart with a horizontal socio-economic axis and a vertical socio-cultural axis and ideologically representative [[political colour]]s, an example for a frequently used model of the political spectrum<ref name=":0"/><ref name=":5" /><ref name=":6" /><ref name=":4" /><ref name=":3"/>]]
[[File:3-axis-model-of-political-ideologies-with-both-moderate-and-radical-versions-and-policies-goals.png|thumb|Three axis model of political ideologies with both moderate and radical versions and the goals of their policies]]
[[File:Political_spectrum_(3D).png|thumb|Another three dimensional model with the three main axes of political ideologies:<br/>&emsp;[[Collectivism]] ⬌ [[Individualism]];<br/>&emsp;[[Progressivism]] ⬌ [[Conservatism]];<br/>&emsp;[[Totalitarianism]] ⬌ [[Libertarianism]]]]
[[File:Ideomap3b-sm.jpg|thumb|An economic group diagram based on [[The Political Compass]]]]{{More citations needed section|date=November 2024}}
In 1998, political author [[Virginia Postrel]], in her book ''[[The Future and Its Enemies]]'', offered another single-axis spectrum that measures views of the future, contrasting stasists, who allegedly fear the future and wish to control it, and dynamists, who want the future to unfold naturally and without attempts to plan and control. The distinction corresponds to the [[utopian]] versus [[dystopian]] spectrum used in some theoretical assessments of liberalism, and the book's title is borrowed from the work of the anti-utopian [[classical liberalism|classic-liberal]] theorist [[Karl Popper]].

Other proposed axes include:
* Focus of political concern: [[communitarianism]] vs. [[individualism]]. These labels are preferred<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Horrell|first1=David|title=Paul Among Liberals and Communitarians|journal=Pacifica|date=2005|volume=18|issue=1|pages=33–52|doi=10.1177/1030570X0501800103|hdl=10036/35872|s2cid=141074567|hdl-access=free}}</ref> to the loaded language of "[[totalitarianism]]" (anti-freedom) vs. "[[libertarianism]]" (pro-freedom), because one can have a political focus on the community without being totalitarian and undemocratic. [[Council communism]] is a [[political philosophy]] that would be counted as [[communitarian]] on this axis, but is not totalitarian or undemocratic.
* Responses to conflict: according to the political philosopher Charles Blattberg, in his essay ''Political Philosophies and Political Ideologies'', those who would respond to conflict with conversation should be considered as on the left, with negotiation as in the centre, and with force as on the right.<ref>{{cite book |last=Blattberg |first=Charles |author-link= Charles Blattberg |chapter= Political Philosophies and Political Ideologies |ssrn= 1755117 |title= Patriotic Elaborations: Essays in Practical Philosophy |publisher= McGill-Queen's University Press |year=2009 }}</ref>
* Role of the religion: [[clericalism]] vs. [[anti-clericalism]]. This axis is less significant in the [[United States]] (where views of the role of [[religion]] tend to be subsumed into the general left–right axis) than in [[Europe]] (where clericalism versus anti-clericalism is much less correlated with the left–right spectrum).
* Urban vs. rural: this axis is significant today in the [[politics of Europe]], [[Politics of Australia|Australia]] and [[Politics of Canada|Canada]]. The [[Urban area|urban]] vs. [[rural]] axis was equally prominent in the [[United States]]' political past, but its importance is debatable at present.{{Dubious|date=November 2024|reason=Urban/rural polarization has never been stronger in the US than in the 2020s.}} In the late 18th century and early 19th century in the United States, it would have been described as the conflict between [[Alexander Hamilton|Hamiltonian]] [[Federalist Party (United States)|Federalists]] and [[Jeffersonian democracy|Jeffersonian Republicans]].
* Foreign policy: [[interventionism (politics)|interventionism]] (the nation should exert power abroad to implement its policy) vs. [[non-interventionism]] (the nation should keep to its own affairs). Similarly, [[multilateralism]] (coordination of policies with other countries) vs. [[isolationism]] and [[unilateralism]].
*[[Geopolitics]]: relations with individual states or groups of states may also be vital to [[party politics]]. During the [[Cold War]], parties often had to choose a position on a scale between pro-American and pro-Soviet Union, although this could at times closely match a left–right spectrum. At other times in history relations with other powerful states has been important. In early [[Canadian history]] relations with Britain were a central theme, although this was not "[[foreign policy]]" but a debate over the proper place of [[Canada]] within the [[British Empire]].
* International action: [[multilateralism]] (states should cooperate and compromise) versus [[unilateralism]] (states have a strong, even unconditional, right to make their own decisions).
* Political violence: [[pacifism]] (political views should not be imposed by violent force) vs. militancy (violence is a legitimate or necessary means of political expression). In [[North America]], particularly in the United States, holders of these views are often referred to as "[[War doves|doves]]" and "[[War hawk|hawks]]", respectively.{{Clarification needed|reason=These terms relate to war and foreign policy, but "political violence" generally connotes the violent pursuit of domestic political objectives, such as assassinating a politician or assaulting a rival group of protestors.|date=November 2024}}
* Foreign trade: [[globalization]] (world economic markets should become integrated and interdependent) vs. [[autarky]] (the nation or polity should strive for economic independence). During the early history of the [[Commonwealth of Australia]], this was the major political continuum. At that time it was called [[free trade]] vs. [[protectionism]].
* Trade politics: free trade (businesses should be able trade across borders without regulations) vs. [[fair trade]] (international trade should be regulated on behalf of social justice).
* Diversity: [[multiculturalism]] (the nation should represent a diversity of cultural ideas) vs. [[Assimilation (sociology)|assimilationism]] or [[nationalism]] (the nation should primarily represent, or forge, a majority culture).
* Participation: [[democracy]] (rule of majority or [[consensus democracy|consensus]]) vs. [[aristocracy]] (rule by the enlightened, elitism) vs. [[tyranny]] (total degradation of aristocracy). Ancient Greek philosophers such as [[Plato]] and [[Aristotle]] recognized tyranny as a state in which the tyrant is ruled by utter [[Stoic passions|passion]], and not reason like the [[philosopher]], resulting in the tyrant pursuing his own desires rather than the common good.
* Freedom: [[positive liberty]] (having rights which impose an obligation on others) vs. [[negative liberty]] (having rights which prohibit interference by others).
* Social power: [[totalitarianism]] vs. [[anarchism]] (control vs. no control) Analyzes the fundamental political interaction among people, and between individuals and their environment. Often posits the existence of a moderate system as existing between the two extremes.
* Change: [[Political radicalism|radical]] [[Revolutionary|revolutionaries]] (who believe in rapid change in support of an ideology) vs. [[Progressivism|progressives]] (who believe in advancing change to the status quo) vs. [[liberalism|liberals]] (who passively accept change) vs. [[conservatism|conservatives]] (who believe in moderating change to preserve the status quo) vs. radical [[Reactionary|reactionaries]] (who believe in changing things to a previous state, i.e. status quo ante).
**[[Political moderate|Political moderates]] oppose radical (revolutionary or reactionary) policies, but they may have progressive, conservative, or liberal tendencies.
* Origin of state authority: [[popular sovereignty]] (the state as a creation of the people, with enumerated, delegated powers) vs. various forms of [[Autocracy|absolutism]] and [[organic state]] philosophy (the state as an original and essential authority) vs. the view held in [[anarcho-primitivism]] that "civilization originates in conquest abroad and repression at home".<ref>Diamond, Stanley, ''In Search Of The Primitive: A Critique Of Civilization'', (New Brunswick: Transaction Books, 1981), p. 1.</ref>
* Levels of sovereignty: [[Political unitarism|unitarism]] vs. [[federalism]] vs. [[separatism]]; or [[centralism]] vs. [[regionalism (politics)|regionalism]]. Especially important in societies where strong regional or ethnic identities are political issues.
**[[European integration]] (in Europe): [[Euroscepticism]] vs. [[European federalism]]; [[nation state]] vs. [[multinational state]].
**[[Globalization]]: [[nationalism]] or [[patriotism]] vs. [[cosmopolitanism]] or [[Internationalism (politics)|internationalism]]; [[sovereignty]] vs. [[global governance]].
* Openness: closed ([[cultural conservative|culturally conservative]] and [[protectionism|protectionist]]) vs. open ([[social liberalism|socially liberal]] and [[globalism|globalist]]). Popularised as a concept by [[Tony Blair]] in 2007 and increasingly dominant in 21st century European and North American politics.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21702750-farewell-left-versus-right-contest-matters-now-open-against-closed-new|title=The new political divide|date=30 July 2016|access-date=24 April 2017|newspaper=The Economist}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.aei.org/publication/politics-closed-party-vs-open-party/|title=The Closed Party vs. the Open Party|first=James|last=Pethokoukis|date=1 July 2016|access-date=24 April 2017|website=American Enterprise Institute}}</ref>
* [[Propertarianism]]: Support or opposition to "sticky" private property.
* Priority: the good of the state ([[patriotism]]) vs. the good of the population as a whole ([[utilitarianism]]) vs. the good of certain individuals (often occurs in [[Autocracy|autocratic regimes]]).
* Technology: technological progress or acceleration (e.g. [[transhumanism]]) vs. technological regress or deceleration (e.g. [[anarcho-primitivism]]).
** [[FM-2030]] coined the terms "up-wing" (looking to the sky and the future, e.g. [[space colonization]]) and "down-wing" (looking to the Earth and the past).<ref>{{Cite web |title=The Frozen Father of Modern Transhumanism |url=https://www.vice.com/en/article/the-frozen-father-of-moden-transhumanism/ |access-date=2 November 2024 |website=Vice |date=14 October 2015 |language=en |archive-date=20 January 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230120132314/https://www.vice.com/en/article/4x3kjj/the-frozen-father-of-moden-transhumanism |url-status=live }}</ref>