Three Languages Of Politics

The Three Languages of Politics. When it was first released in 2013, Arnold Kling’s The Three Languages of Politics was a prescient exploration of political communication, detailing the “three tribal coalitions” that make up America’s political landscape. Progressives, conservatives, and libertarians, he argued, are “like tribes speaking different languages"... The first edition did not make it sufficiently clear that the three‐​axes model is meant to describe political psychology and political communication, rather than to dissect political thought. The second edition clarified that.

The Three Languages of Politics—A Review.

Arnold Kling is an American economist who thinks that our efforts to defuse political animosity are putting the cart before the horse. In The Three Languages of Politics, Kling argues that to understand our political opponents, we need to update the way we frame disagreements. Liberals, conservatives, and libertarians each have their own tribal language, which often baffles and infuriates outsiders.

Kling provides a simple framework for making sense of these semantic differences.

Kling’s framework eschews the simplistic left–right spectrum in favor of a ‘three-axes’ model of political communication, whereby people tend to communicate in either a progressive, conservative, or libertarian manner.

Progressives communicate along an oppressor–oppressed axis

Conservatives communicate along a civilization–barbarism axis

Libertarians communicate along a liberty–coercion axis,

each tribe is simply focused on a different set of concerns. And while these concerns occasionally conflict with each other, they can also be compatible. When our worldview is constricted to just one axis, though, any difference in concern comes across as an unbridgeable divide

Kling uses the Holocaust to show how each tribe can be on the right side of history, but for different reasons.

the other tribes seem indifferent to—if not openly welcoming of—the downfall of civilization. Only by peering beyond the confines of their respective axes can people appreciate that other tribes, though they emphasize different concerns, are not necessarily enemies.

if we hope to have a well-rounded outlook, we must become comfortable inhabiting each of the three axes.

At different historical junctures, one or the other axis has provided a superior way to frame noteworthy issues. During the American civil rights movement, the oppressor–oppressed axis was best

From the 1960s to the 1990s, many Western democracies were beset with rising crime rates. In dealing with this explosion of crime, the civilization–barbarism axis proved most effective.

Unfortunately, this reduction in crime rates has led to a surge in over-incarceration

As we reassess our attitudes towards draconian drug laws, we’re increasingly turning to the liberty-coercion axis.

As Kling writes at the end of The Three Languages of Politics, “treating people who use other heuristics [ie. axes] as reasonable is likely to prove a less stressful and more productive way of approaching politics than treating the other heuristics as heresies that must be stamped out.” Compared to today’s Balkanized political arena, Kling’s prescription would make for a much healthier politics.

Hmm, is it just an after-the-fact biased interpretation of what the "best axis" was at a moment in time? How do you know what's best moving forward? What kind of trade-offs are appropriate?