The Three Axes Of Political Arguments

Understanding the meta nature of political argumentation

All Political Arguments Fall Somewhere in this Space

Ran across an interesting idea on the web last week: all political arguments fall somewhere on a 3-dimensional grid. Understanding this grid, and how the arguments work, can help you both understand the discussion and find new solutions to old problems.

Economist Arnold King came up with this wonderful idea late last year. In his own words

The axes help to predict which threats will be exaggerated by which partisan.

A conservative will exaggerate the extent to which a practice leads to barbarism. Again, I use the example of illegal immigration. A conservative emphasizes that it is illegal, therefore the immigrants are lawbreakers by definition, hence the threat to civilization is intrinsic. In general, I think that conservatives view social trends as much more dire than I do and see society in decline more readily than I do.

A progressive will exaggerate the extent to which people fall into classes of oppressors and oppressed. If you look at the biography of UN Ambassador Susan Rice, she apparently both inherited and married into wealth, received an elite education, worked for McKinsey, and now has a net worth of over $20 million. Yet people on the left describe her as oppressed, because she is African-American and female. I want to say, “Really?”

A libertarian will exaggerate the extent to which a practice represents coercion. They are fond of saying, “If you don’t comply with xyz policy, men with guns will come and take you to prison.” I understand this argument and I generally take it as valid. However, I can also understand how someone with a different point of view might argue that when they pay taxes what they get in return is a fair deal.

It’s important to understand these argument dynamics as separate axes. That is, you don’t have to choose between one kind of argument or another. This, in fact, is the key to the entire value of what King has provided. For any one topic, a reasonable argument could appear anywhere in the 3-dimensional space.

What happens, of course, is that people of each persuasion will do their best to convince you that there is only one axis and you must make a choice along it, when, in fact, no such situation exists.

Understanding that no such choice is necessary, and understanding the total number of types of arguments to be made allows us to “step outside” the rhetoric any one politician or political party is offering. Look at other options.

The internet is still chewing on King’s work. I’m looking forward to watching this develop.