We have libertarian, conservative and liberal. What about the fourth philosophy?

Question

Quick note: I don't actually support the ideology I'm asking about. Just wondering about it's existence (or lack there of) in moderate politics.

Talking basic politics 101 (very generalized). It can be said that the following is accurate:
Libertarians believe in social freedom and economic freedom
Conservatives believe in social regulation and economic freedom
Liberals believe in social freedom and economic regulation

What about the group that believes in social regulation and economic regulation? I've been wondering for a few years now - is it possible for such an ideology to emerge without becoming extremist? (like Stalinists - who could arguably be classified as this)

What i'm trying to say is can a party be like the democrats towards the economy and like the republicans toward social issues? Or would it be perceived by the public as too regulatory (and reminiscent of repressive regimes).

I usually see this ideology in areas that have low-income with a religious/moral base.

I want to add (ran out of characters) that I got this idea from the following diagram:
http://civilities.net/images/PoliticalGrids/KerryBush.gif

The diagram lists it as "populist" (although populist in the past has been used for different reasons), which is probably the friendliest name for it. Other charts usually label it as "authoritarian" or "statist."

Answer 1

In pure theory, it's totalitarianism.

Other terms for it include fascism, populism, statism, authoritarianism, etc... depending on who you ask.

From your additional details, it seems like you've figured it out.

Answer 2

I think the problem here is the fact that you're trying too hard to simplify the scale of political belief into a woefully small group.

EIther way, I would say that the group you're talking about are generally on the extremes, both left and right. Extreme leftists would certainly qualify. They obviously want to regulate the economy, and I would say that they have no problem jumping into social issues as well. Things like the welfare state and big government are, at least in practice, just as socially relevant as they are economically. Think China. They have a strongly regulated economy (one that is certainly opening, but is still vastly state controlled), and they have a powerful social influence as well (the one child policy, and religious restriction, for example). All of this considered, China falls to the extreme left. Thus, they would fall towards your conception of liberal, only more radically and invasively so.

You also see this on the right. Fascism is a prime example. Nazi Germany had a number of strict controls on the economy (price and interest rate control, for example), and an even more strict social control (I don't think I need to cite examples here). While, in reality, the result was similar to leftist regimes, the Nazis actually held a political ideology that was the polar opposite of the left. Fascists are radical right leaners. Basically the utter corruption of your conservatives.

As you see, the "fourth group" you're looking for has existed, and continues to exist. It is, by its nature, statist and authoritarian. When you have a regime that encompasses the traits you're talking about, massive state consolidation generally occurs and single-party systems generally develop. This being the case, while they often start with different ideologies (your examples of conservative and liberal), the path and outcome are the same.

So. to answer your question: Yes, a fourth party can exist, and it has. Unfortunately, it generally breeds a level of authoritarianism that is intolerable to most people, especially Westerners.

As an aisde, I urge you to seek out more information on the topic of political ideology. Attempting to lump all of politics into three or four groups leaves out massive amounts of ideology, on all sides.

Answer 3

Full out communists - think Big Brother - many of the liberals believe that way too actually and a lot of old fashioned democrat Catholics etc in a different way, such as the religious commune lifestyle. I can see that working in a small community - it works for priests etc for instance - but I cannot see it working on a state or national level.
Look at China, it used to be rather like that - dictated number of children, the way people would act and speak and the occupations they would have.

Answer 4

Interesting restatement of a theory that has been around for years, under a number of names. The problem is that, like all statements of rigid definitions, it overstates and oversimplifies a much more complex economic and social reality.

First, the Libertarian strain of both parties and philosophies of government has never caught on, and libertarians either hide their identities under labels like "populism", or "free trade", or they just get defeated, (or, like Congressman Ron Paul, become marginalized in the Republican Party.)

There is a strain of authoritarianism in both major parties, under many different labels, whether it be political correctness of the left, or fiscal lassaiz fair control turning into deregulation by the right of every consumer protection ever devised by the government.

This debate is as old as the country, when the industrial strong central government Federalists fought it out with the rural states rights Republican-Democrats over local control versus centralized authority. As usual, it is the party that builds up the best coalition of most unlikely bedfellows that gets to govern the country.

The one perennial philosophy in government, no matter he label you attach to it, is pragmatism and self-interest.

Answer 5

We are all Libertarians, however most people are only selectively so.

It is artificial to divide liberty into different categories. Each individual is different. We all want to do different things. We speak of the "freedom to do X" and in terms of having the "freedom to do X" but not the "freedom to do Y" but when you peel back the onion, the "X" that someone thinks people ought to be free to do is just what he wants to do, while the "Y" is what he personally doesn't want others to do. There is no objective difference among the various Xs and Ys - I want to save my money and spend it on myself, my kids and my Chinese ceramics and someone else wants to have sex a certain way - my right to be free from government intrusion in my chosen pursuit is just as sacred as his.

The desire to control others is always of a "moral" bent - Pat Robertson thinks it's his moral duty to control our personal behavior, Al Gore thinks it's his moral duty to control our consumption, Hillary Clinton thinks it's her moral duty to force us to share our property with others - they all seek to impose their definition of morality - a completely subjective concept, as subjective as your taste in art - upon the rest of us.

It is also giving hypocrites far too much credit to validate "liberal" and "conservative" philosophies. You don't see too many homosexual conservatives. You don't see too many self-made liberals. People don't pick one of these "philosophies" first or at the same time as they decide what they want to do - they are already personally oriented and then they adopt a philosophy, either one that says the government should stay out of the type of thing they want to do but regulate the type of thing they don't want to do and don't want done, or the enlightened view that we should each be allowed to pursue our own various definitions of happiness.

Thus, in terms of political philosophy there are three types of people - people who fail to understand this, people who understand it but are willing to contradict themselves, and Libertarians.

I suppose in some corners there are a few people who prefer authoritarianism without regard to the morals imposed - who prefer to be dominated for its own sake, rather than because they want the domination to seek a certain direction.

They have websites for that.

Answer 6

I was a Liberian. I am a liberal. To me, they are the same used in different context. You did not mention those good old Republicans. Sounds like communism or being a republican. Sorry, but after reviewing your question, this is my answer. Please remember that I am dyslexic and it is hard to comprehend your question. So, this answer comes from a different social environment.

Answer 7

Neither, they seek for to maintain on with the form because it became written. No government courses, very nearly all judgements left with the state, minimum taxes, and retaining the government out of your and my domicile.

Answer 8

Anything is possible ,Take a look at who is running for President.

Answer 9

Seriously, I think you might be looking for Fascism.

Answer 10

yes, just look at canada.