That makes sense to me, mostly. (Edit...no it totally doesn't)
I'm a little confused about the US party situation though.
So we've got the left/right axis for economic policies, and the vertical axis for social policy. Got it.
Party wise, the main ones we've got are democrats, republicans, libertarians.
So let's start with the social/vertical axis. Help me sort out where each party lies.
Let's start with Libertarians.
Here we speak in terms of big vs. small government, with libertarians, wanting as little interference from the government as possible. So they're very much not socialists. They're not down with government "hand outs" like food stamps, housing benefits, they don't like taxes, and they pursue/value the right to keep the money they earn and spend their money how they want to. (I asked a libertarian friend of mine what they thought about things like charities, or organizations like planned parenthood, or homeless shelters, or drug rehab centers, and also things like hospitals, fire stations, libraries, police, etc. that are very socialist in nature, and how that would work if libertarians were in charge. The way they explained it to me was that if everyone were allowed to spend their money how they pleased, and weren't taxed, they would willingly choose to contribute money to the kinds of organizations I just listed by choice, and society would run more smoothly. However, I don't think that's how it would end up panning out at all. I think people on their own, without some sort of organizing body to help decide where funds should go/need to go, they would end up either underfunding everything, making those services not viable, or they would distribute funds in an uneven way that would screw over large portions of society (the poor, the disabled, the mentally ill, people with drug problems, women who need access to reproductive health services etc.). Would they solve that by privatizing those services? And let the private organizations decide on their own standards and rules and prices? I don't know if any of that makes sense, but in any case, you have libertarianism at the bottom of the vertical axis, and authoritarianism at the top. So far so good (possibly)
So on to Democrats. Democrats are happy with a "bigger government", lots of government involvement in funding social programs, and often playing a large part in operating and regulating those programs/organizations. They are in favor of using taxes to be able to fund social programs, and see the government's role as being to be involved in allocating funds to those programs like the ones listed above, in hopefully as fair a way as possible, and to regulate those programs so that they all meet a standard that the government agrees on. This is definitely not libertarian...but you have the opposite as 'authoritarian'. So would you say democrats are authoritarian when it comes to social policy? I would want to say it sounds more like socialism, but you have socialism on the horizontal axis. I don't think democrats are authoritarian when it comes to social policy. That doesn't fit to me. Maybe you can help me clarify that in my mind.
Okay, so on to Republicans. I'm guessing they are going to lie somewhere on the bottom half of the vertical axis, toward the libertarian end, but probably aren't right at the bottom, and are more spread throughout a fairly wide range of the bottom. Is that right? I can imagine them being fine with being taxed or in some way being made to contribute to essentials like hospitals, the postal system, police and fire stations, and possibly libraries (Or would they want to privatize all of that?), but would like to pay as little tax as is feasible, and might tend to think at least some of the following programs like food stamps, housing assistance, meal assistance for impoverished school children, drug rehab centers, planned parenthood, mental health services, homeless shelters, disability SSI, etc. are things they shouldn't have to pay for. Like kind of a, "if you've got a problem, pay for it youself" attitude. And if you don't have a problem, you shouldn't have to pay for someone else's problems. Maybe this is presumptive though. I don't know. I don't honestly know many (any?) republicans personally (they're a rare breed around here. I saw a Trump bumper sticker once!) In any case, I know for a fact republicans try to push through policies to end funding for things like planned parenthood, and are very keen to ditch obamacare and have everyone who wants insurance buy their own insurance privately. Same kind of idea. Like a man thinking, I'm not a woman, I shouldn't have to pay for some else's mistake/abortion. Or "I'm not sick, and i don't want to buy health insurance, and I shouldn't have to pay for other people's sickness." Or something along those lines.
Alright, now the horizontal axis, economic policy:
Starting with the libertarians again. They're gonna be over on the right side, right? The liberal/conservative side? That's a little hard for me to wrap my head around. I am inclined to think of liberal as the opposite of conservative...but we're only talking about economic policy here. I'm still baffled by that. Being fiscally conservative is being in favor of having little government control on how to allocate funds. And since libertarians aren't into taxes, the government wouldn't really have any money to allocate to anyone anyway. Yes? No? I don't know. Being fiscally liberal as far as I know, is the exact opposite. Wanting the government to be highly involved in deciding where tax money goes. I'm trying to at least try to fact check myself here, and so far google is backing me up on this. So I still really don't get why liberal and conservative are on the same end of the spectrum. Maybe the word just means something different in the UK? (but I have my british VPN turned on so my google searching should be giving me UK results...)
Alright, Democrats, I'm guessing you would put on the left, which you're calling 'socialism'. I can live with that. But I still think it would make more sense to call Democrats fiscally liberal, not fiscally socialist, or whatever. It doesn't matter. Labels shmabels.
Republicans! They're going to be on the conservative/liberal (still sounds paradoxical to me) side. They want less government intervention yada yada. I'm going to move on now. But do feel free to tell me I'm completely wrong about all of this or whatever. But please at least consider my final point, which is...
You say "actual politics" have nothing to do with "social attitudes" and persecuting gays etc. I beg to differ on that. What you've laid out is way of charting where on the fiscal and social axes each party lies. But I think persecuting gays, and blacks and muslims are absolutely "real political" issues. Example: most republican states resisted the legalization of gay marriage, surely reinforcing, or at least not doing anything to reduce persecution of gays, and certainly impinging on their civil liberties. Let's talk a bit about institutional racism, police brutality, and racial profiling. Take the state of Texas as an example. In 2002, African Americans and Latinos composed about 70% of the prison population. Both racial groups were also much more likely than whites to be imprisoned, rather than jailed, which generally means longer sentences, more emphasis on punishment, and less emphasis on rehabilitation. 4 in 10 texan citizens are black or latino. Yet in prison, 7 in 10 prisoners are black or latino. I know this is just a simplified example, but the point I'm trying to make is the republican platform largely ignores the existance of institutional racism, police brutality, racial profiling, and does not acknowledge movements such as Black Lives Matter. Instead their platform emphasizes the supposed lack of respect shown for police officers. And emphasizes that the government's duty should be to restore trust in the police force. By contrast, Democrats acknowledge police profiling and brutality as high priority issues, and openly admit that there is systematic racism in our current police system, and are pushing for better training officers in de-escalation techniques and non-violent interventions, and setting better and more clear guidelines as to what constitutes excessive use of force, so that officers who do use excessive force can be held legally responsible for their actions. It seems you want to be able to say that the "real politics" the socialism v. liberalism, and authoritarianism v. libertarianism have nothing to do with people's "social attitudes". I know the categories themselves aren't responsible for the social attitudes, but the politicians who fit into those categories and dictate policies regarding social issues, and the funding or lack of funding for programs to address those social issues ABSOLUTELY have something to do with people's social attitudes. If I'm a democrat (I'm not), and i'm socially liberal, I'm going to be in favor of using tax money to fund programs aimed to help decrease things like institutional racism, which leads to racial profiling, and excessive use of force (and murder of unarmed black kids), and imprisonment. Is that not "actual politics" having something to do with "social attitudes". Or how about a republican, because of their fiscal conservatism, they're not keen on paying more taxes than they have to, and likely don't want to have to pay for other people's problems, problems like mental illness, disability, diabetes, cancer, whatever it may be. The people they elected tell them it's not their problem, and lo and behold, their "social attitudes" toward people who have those problems start to line up with their "real political" fiscal conservativism, which tells them that it's not only acceptable to not want, or need to take responsibility for helping people with those problems, but that because of that they're entitled to be spiteful/hateful/discriminatory toward people who have those problems if/when they DO have to put their tax money toward solving their problems . Their "real politics" give them license to take on those "social attitudes". To me the "real politics" and the "social attitudes" are inextricably linked. Or if not inextricably, and least strongly causally linked.
