US History - The Political Spectrum (Today)

EQ: What is the Political Spectrum and Where do you fall on the political spectrum?

Do Now: Are you a Democrat, Republican, Independent, or other?


Lesson Overview
Utilized	Activity	Time Allocated	Mode of Activity
____	Do Now	_________ / 2-5 Min	(Individual / Think-Pair-Share / Pair / Group #____)
____	Mini Lesson	_________/ 15-20 Min	(Individual / Think-Pair-Share / Pair / Group #____)
____	Activity	_________ / 20-30 Min	(Individual / Think-Pair-Share / Pair / Group #_____)
____	Discussion/Exit Ticket	_________ / 5-10 Min	(Individual / Think-Pair-Share / Pair / Group #____)
____	Assessment	_________ / 10-40 Min	(Individual / Think-Pair-Share / Pair / Group #____)
____	Conferencing	_________ Min	(Individual / Pair / Group #____ / Throughout Class Period)

Political Spectrum

The terms liberal, conservative, radical, extremist, and a few similar labels, are perhaps used more than any others in academics, political conversations, and by the communications media. However, it is doubtful that many people have a clear understanding of these terms and the differences they signify. It is difficult to pick up the editorial page of any newspaper without reading about the in-fighting of the liberals and conservatives in either the House of Representatives or the Senate, or other political groups. One is also likely to read about radical or reactionary groups or interests at work somewhere in our society. Because these terms are so often and carelessly used, it is important that the interested student and the concerned citizen be able to define them and recognize when they are properly (and improperly) used.

The Spectrum Itself

Political scientists have created terms to define/describe people’s political positions. In order to visually compare how each position relates to others, a “Political Spectrum” has been created. There are two ways in which one can draw the Political Spectrum: the first as a line, the second as a circle - either method is acceptable, it simply depends on the person with which style you feel comfortable.

The farther you travel away from center (to the far left or right on the line or toward the top of the circle), the more extreme your political views are seen and, thusly, labeled. The points of the circle come close to touching but do not quite touch because if you are in a situation where radicals or reactionaries are ruling, the results can look amazingly similar.

By Definition So how does one distinguish between each of the labels? There are two “tests” which are most often used, the first is readiness to change and the second is how involved is the government.

Readiness to Change

Liberals are often said to be “on the political left” while Radicals are often called “left-wingers” or

“leftists,” as they are found further left on the political spectrum and they tend to welcome change.

Conservatives are often said to be on the political right while reactionaries are often called rightwingers

or rightists and are less/quite reluctant to accept change. If each position on the continuum were defined it might read as follows:

The Radical: Favors a radical or basic change. Quite impatient and would quickly

support a revolution to bring about the desired change.

The Liberal: Is ready to move forward and accept change but would be

considered a reformer rather than a revolutionary.

The Conservative: Is quite content with things the way they are.
The Reactionary: Wants change also, but wants to retreat into the past and

restore the order of things the way they used to be.

Level of Government Involvement

The best test for determining where an idea or action falls on the political spectrum is the level of government involvement. The more involved the government, the further left the concept – the less involved the government, the further right the concept.

Liberals: Favor political and social reform, usually government-driven; favor increased federal

services (welfare, social security, Medicare, student-loans, etc); government intervention in the economy; consumer protection ensured by the government; government involvement in protecting the environment; guaranteeing the rights of people; and one which is different than more involvement, Liberals tend to support less military.

Conservatives: Tend to believe that a larger/powerful government threatens its citizen’s

freedoms; support smaller government; support limited government involvement in economic issues (laissez-faire); tend to believe social problems should be handled on a smaller scale (statelevel, community-level, churches, etc), however, conservatives support a stronger military.

Whatever the differences between the “left” and the “right” in accepting change and involving the government, all four viewpoints are helpful to society. They encourage us to discuss, debate, and compromise while all work toward the best in our society.

Source: The Political Spectrum Reading

FYI: Hitler Was A Socialist

Many people, especially modern liberals, focus only on Hitler's fascism, conveniently ignoring his socialist agenda. Liberals tend to liken any conservative politician whose polcies they despise to Hitler. This is a baseless comparison and runs contrary to historical facts. Hitler was a leftist, socialist, environmentalist who was appeased/accommodated by liberals and opposed by conservatives during his rise to power.

Here are some excerpts from Dr. John J. Ray's fabulous and well documented exploration of the topic:

He had been something of a bohemian in his youth, and always regarded young people and their idealism as the key to progress and the overcoming of outmoded prejudices. And he was widely admired by the young people of his country, many of whom belonged to organizations devoted to practicing and propagating his teachings. He had a lifelong passion for music, art, and architecture, and was even something of a painter. He rejected what he regarded as petty bourgeois moral hang-ups, and he and his girlfriend "lived together" for years. He counted a number of homosexuals as friends and collaborators, and took the view that a man's personal morals were none of his business; some scholars of his life believe that he himself may have been homosexual or bisexual. He was ahead of his time where a number of contemporary progressive causes are concerned: he disliked smoking, regarding it as a serious danger to public health, and took steps to combat it; he was a vegetarian and animal lover; he enacted tough gun control laws; and he advocated euthanasia for the incurably ill.

He championed the rights of workers, regarded capitalist society as brutal and unjust, and sought a third way between communism and the free market. In this regard, he and his associates greatly admired the strong steps taken by President Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal to take large-scale economic decision-making out of private hands and put it into those of government planning agencies. His aim was to institute a brand of socialism that avoided the inefficiencies that plagued the Soviet variety, and many former communists found his program highly congenial. He deplored the selfish individualism he took to be endemic to modern Western society, and wanted to replace it with an ethic of self-sacrifice: "As Christ proclaimed 'love one another'," he said, "so our call -- 'people's community,' 'public need before private greed,' 'communally-minded social consciousness' -- rings out.! This call will echo throughout the world!"

The reference to Christ notwithstanding, he was not personally a Christian, regarding the Catholicism he was baptized into as an irrational superstition. In fact he admired Islam more than Christianity, and he and his policies were highly respected by many of the Muslims of his day. He and his associates had a special distaste for the Catholic Church and, given a choice, preferred modern liberalized Protestantism, taking the view that the best form of Christianity would be one that forsook the traditional other-worldly focus on personal salvation and accommodated itself to the requirements of a program for social justice to be implemented by the state. They also considered the possibility that Christianity might eventually have to be abandoned altogether in favor of a return to paganism, a worldview many of them saw as more humane and truer to the heritage of their people. For he and his associates believed strongly that a people's ethnic and racial heritage was what mattered most. Some endorsed a kind of cultural relativism according to which what is true or false and right or wrong in some sense depends on one's ethnic worldview, and especially on what best promotes the well-being of one's ethnic group

As Dr. Ray points out this sounds like any modern candidate for the Democratic party. Hitler, were he alive today, would be one of them... Here's part of a manifesto he produced for the National Socialist German Workers Party in 1925:

Therefore we demand:

That all unearned income, and all income that does not arise from work, be abolished.
Since every war imposes on the people fearful sacrifices in life and property, all personal profit arising from the war must be regarded as a crime against the people. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits whether in assets or material.
We demand the nationalization of businesses which have been organized into cartels.
We demand that all the profits from wholesale trade shall be shared out.
We demand extensive development of provision for old age.
We demand the creation and maintenance of a healthy middle-class, the immediate communalization of department stores which will be rented cheaply to small businessmen, and that preference shall be given to small businessmen for provision of supplies needed by the State, the provinces and municipalities.
We demand a land reform in accordance with our national requirements, and the enactment of a law to confiscate from the owners without

compensation any land needed for the common purpose. The abolition of ground rents, and the prohibition of all speculation in land.

This is a POV (Point of View/Opinion) of the Author of the Blog Woody's Place and is used here to highlight a view about the political spectrum.

Who can argue that this is not a page right out of any modern US Democrat's secret dream book? Abolish all investment income? Check. Confiscate war profits, i.e. Halliburton? Check. Demand nationalization of large businesses like "big oil", "big pharmaceutical" and "big banks"? Check. Free ride for old folks since you took away all their businesses and investments? Check. Push class warfare and pander to the middle class? Check. Attack department stores (the Walmart's of their day)? Check. No more private property rights? Check. I can truly imagine Barack Obama signing all of this into law.

The United States of America is currently rushing towards socialism. Can fascism be far behind? I believe they go hand in hand, especially during times of unrest and economic uncertainty. The rise of socialism in the US timed with our current economic difficulties is no accident. People in fear will reach out to anything for salvation, and leftists like Obama adviser Rahm Emmanuel have publicly vowed to use this crisis as an opportunity to get things done they normally could not. Nationalized banks, nationalized auto companies, nationalized health care... those are only the beginnings.

Source: Hitler was a Socialist - Woody's Place

Activities

Lesson PowerPoint: The Political Spectrum

Lesson Video:

Obama - Apology for Loosing Healthcare Coverage Under Obamacare
Obama - Redistributing the Wealth Comments	Reagan - Government is Not the Answer

Lesson Activity: