NEW: Limited edition signed prints of this image now available the Left vs Right political spectrum. A collaboration between David McCandless and information artist Stefanie Posavec, taken from my book The Visual Miscellaneum (out Nov 10th).
Of course, the political spectrum is not quite so polarised. Actually, it’s more of a diamond shape, apparently. But this is how it’s mostly presented via the media – left wing vs. right wing, liberal vs. conservative, Labour vs Tory. And perhaps in our minds too…
Well, certainly in my mind. Researching this showed me that, despite my inevitable journalistic lean to the ‘left’, I am actually a bit more ‘right’ than I suspected.
This kind of visual approach to mapping concepts really excites me. I like the way it coaxes me to entertain two apparently contradictory value systems at the same time. Or, in other words, I like the way it f**ks with my head.
I’ve got a few more of these coming from my book. They do a similar act of mind-flossing. Stay tuned.
Oh and if there’s enough demand, we’re going to do a signed, limited edition poster run of this image before Christmas. Email informationisbeautiful [at] gmail [dot] com if you’re interested
design notes
The original design concept was “something like a rosette”. But Stefanie did an amazing job taking it way further.
(I’ll be doing a ‘Great Visualizers’ piece on her in the future. But you can see some of her work here: itsbeenreal.co.uk. My particular favourite are her literary organisms. Truly beautiful and very informational. Yum.)
There are two versions with different colours: a US and a World version. This is because the US and Switzerland are the only countries in the world where red = right wing and blue = left wing. Grrr!
178 Comments
Just curious, why is the Left colored red and the Right colored blue? This is antithetical to the standard red & blue assignments for republicans and democrats.
because the rest of the world uses this color scheme except for the USA. Left is red because of socialist tendencies. Right blue for liberal / conservative. The us has everything backwards. Liberals in the rest of the world are right wing, but in the USA, theyre ‘Left’ wing. So a very conservative politician in Europe would be considered a dang liberal in the USA.
Heh, never mind, just saw the different versions. Cheers!
“Progressive” would be a better term to use on your chart than “Libertarian”.
I’m not into politic but this infographic is sinfully beautiful and honest.
Should be more powerful with a bigger size.
Interesting concept, but the red/blue throws me off completely. Was there a reason why you decided to give the Left (predominantly democrats) a RED and the right (predominantly republicans) a BLUE?
@wes and others re: colours
there are two versions
red(L), blue(R) ‘world’ version – http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/left-vs-right-world/
red(R), blue(L) ‘US version’ – http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/left-vs-right-us/
The USA and Switzerland are some of the few countries where left wing = blue.
Sorry if I didn’t make that clear
I hate to find fault in something so beautiful as this – but why use the gendered images? Why is the man out in the world and the woman with child?
As a woman, are my political beliefs only supposed to be influenced by my love? my children? Research doesn’t support this. My own experience doesn’t support this.
Oh wait, looking at this again, the woman doesn’t even get a thought bubble. I suppose it is my role to share my beliefs with my husband? Interesting and wrong.
I did learn something though – it is interesting that the colors (red/blue) we associate with the difft parties are switched across the pond (in US, blue is Democrat, red is Republican).
Why on earth would they put libertarians on the left side? You correctly point out that the spectrum is not simply “left versus right”, so why include libertarians when they are off of that axis?
Good work! Been looking for an easy to follow way to explain this for ages. Would be interested in a print.
Your right wing side has “Don’t interfere with: society, social lives” – how does that mesh with most right wing parties being against civil rights for minorities? Does denying a portion of society the same rights as everyone else somehow not count? Perhaps you mean to say that they are simply not trying hard enough (as per the right wing model of the “self-reliant individual”) to overcome the whims of the dominant majority who may indeed hate and fear them? I’d like to understand your reasoning on this.
This is cute but less than informational in places where the creator strained to create polar opposites where there was a more subtle difference between groups. For instance: conservatives believe as strongly in government interference in society as do liberals if not more so–abortion rights, women’s rights, state-sponsored religion, opposing gay lifestyle/marriage/behvavior/consentual-activity, free speech if disagreed with, etc.etc.. Conservatives want government to mandate aspects of society–but certain ones dictated by their religion more strongly than others.
“conservatives believe as strongly in government interference in society as do liberals if not more so–abortion rights, women’s rights, state-sponsored religion, opposing gay lifestyle/marriage/behvavior/consentual-activity, free speech if disagreed with”
So, you’re a leftie, too, eh? Conservatives believe AS STRONGLY as do liberals in using govt to control society — they just are more open about they desire to use govt control because they’re losing.
Lefties have created a society where the govt FORCES companies and people to behave in certain ways (ever try to *not* hire a … pick your ‘protected’ class of hiree), while the right wails because they would have the govt FORCE hirees to accept that businesses are the protected class whose rights to hire or not hire them outweighs their desire to be hired, no matter what.
Lefties have created a “justice” system where a person can be sued, or even kicked out of college, for using “unacceptable” {eye roll} words because it hurt someone’s feelings. Conservatives would have people accept that some others should be “allowed” (even phrasing it that way makes me wince!) to say or do things that might hurt others’ feelings. So, the left would “protect” (like a parent?!) the weak self-image of some people (whom the left thinks) must be protected from hearing bad things); while the right would “protect” the… you know … FREEDOM of people to SAY anything they want to say to anyone they want to say it too!
There is no difference in the DESIRE to control — and have the govt force control on — people. The only difference is in which things they think need to be controlled, and controlled toward which ends. But the left is absolutely winning — look around! So, the right makes noise, because they cannot make action. And the left then acts as if the right is nearly winning because the left’s goals are “self-evident” in society!
I’m a bit worried about the Right profile built in. Using adjectives like “inclusive”, “evolving” and “progress” to describe, in general, the Left wing is completely wrong in my opinion. It makes the Right profile looks like a neanderthal way of thinking, stagnated in time, heartless bunch of bureaucrats . Things like “rough love” also compels me to think that republican oriented people are like animals in human skin (on a rural enviroment btw).
I think the information is heavily biased by the political concepts of the creators. I could use several pejorative words to describe the Left, like “more tendency to use drugs”, or “more tendency to be criminals” or even “political background for the most hedious mentality in human history”, but it would just lose it’s sense.
Tracing general profiles is hard, especially when dealing with so many nuances between various groups. But not all Right-oriented people had “tough love” built by “fear”. Not all Right-oriented people work in the military or the police. I’m a designer and I’m Republican, and I must say that I don’t feel represented or even taken in account in that political portrait of thinking. As I said previously, it’s highly biased by political thinking of its executors.
The design is pretty neat, though.
Thanks for the clarity and, after my own research, I do see why you considered Red and Blue for the ‘world’ version :)
However, I still thinks it’s a poor choice of colors just because Red and Blue are two very crucial and polarizing colors in a country that get’s a lot of political attention in the world. Don’t blame me, blame our media in the US for making Red vs. Blue such a focal point. Even in Switzerland, you don’t have Red Canton’s and Blue Canton’s where in the states, a red or blue state makes a lot of difference in such a divided country. Basically, it’s a sensitive topic. :)
Also, having the capital building from Wash D.C. make the world version very confusing in respect to colors. The information is great overall, but I think you will have more engaged people (who won’t focus on colors like me) if you change the colors for the world view and put something like the UK Parliament Bldng or the Reichtag outline in place of the capital building. Just my 2c. Cheers.
Sorry, but since when is it a characteristic of the right to vote on “militancy” and “aggression”. Surely no one actually believes that all republicans vote with an aggressive mindset. This chart has a clear political motivation.
Some major flaws! Libertarianism is theoretically much more a trait of the right. Actually it is more complicated, as socialism is more associated with regulation of economy, gun possesion, property, and conservatism more with regulation of civil liberties, eg: abortion, same-sex marriage, marijuana, etc.
I usually see this kind of dichotomy split four ways inlcuding totalitarianism and libertarianism as two separate poles.
Another draft could nail this one.
Left/Right is a flawed concept, and trying to divide it up as rigidly as this is ridiculous.
Also, this particular graphic is terribly biased.
As a libertarian, I agree with most of both sides. But this paints all the ‘left’ points in a positive light, and most of the ‘right’ points in a negative light.
Wow. Beautiful poster and a wonderful concept! I don’t envy you the assault of academics and reactionaries who are going to run this work of art through the semiotic and symbolic shredder. Brilliant, provocative idea!
Canada would be another country that uses the opposite color scheme. This does seem like a terribly biased infrographic, but I think that in itself reveals a truth – the authors state that it represents media portrayals, and the media is generally left-biased, in my observation. I think the term “libertarian” has been misused, the author should check into libertarianism more, as it’s tenants are more commonly associated with right-wing thinking.
Perspective?
Funny how those leaning conservative find that this depiction is obviously slanted against them and uses specific language to cast them in a negative light.
On the liberal side is: communist (but no “fascist” on the right?), “interferes with”, “regulated”, equality over freedom, “pacifism” and several other things that are not the most positive and things that many, many liberals would not subscribe to. Yet, I am only left to imagine that the conservatives think, “Yep, that’s them alright.”
And, this is supposed to be a simple simplification (hehehe). Like it or not, it does a fair job at describing the general base and attitudes of these two…I don’t even know what to call them, saying “philosophies” is a slap in the face to thinkers of the world, I guess “approaches”…I am neither a “pacifist” nor someone who “interferes” with my neighbors. But I am also not trying to make stuff up and say, “Uh-uh!!!”
American here, I really dont see the problem with the colors, sure its the opposite here in the states, but considering this was made int the UK and represents the color/political divide more or less on a more international scale it makes sense its the way it is. There are some problems with the graph though, as other suggested there really should be more of a 4 way split to lean to. Also, at least here in the states, conservatives seem to be more than happy to interfere in social life especially when it comes to religion and what they consider “moral” values, economically though they are much more hands off. For the left, socially they seem to lean on the side of individual freedom but economically wish to regulate. Since there is no 4 way divide I would put libertarian on the conservative side due to the fact that most of them tend to lean right (in fact most libertarians here in the states are faux-libertarians that only give lip service to social freedom). Other than that pretty interesting picture
I also have objections to the chart (like, for example, the idea that conservatives favour “preservation” all the time, when often their programs of de-regulation are innovative relative to the status quo), but before we jump on the ‘bias’ bandwagon, do keep in mind that this reflects more of the “popular” understanding of left/right that the more nuanced reality:
Of course, the political spectrum is not quite so polarised. Actually, it’s more of a diamond shape, apparently. But this is how it’s mostly presented via the media – left wing vs. right wing, liberal vs. conservative, Labour vs Tory. And perhaps in our minds too…
Maybe the next chart will be a four-way one? That would very interesting.
For me as a citizen of post socialistic country these diagram aren’t true. Right side is “as is”, but Left side is “must be”. In socialistic countries never was personal freedom, gays was criminal elements and community was based on so called double ethics – think what you want but speak and do what asked by communists.
The way this is presented makes me sad. This is a perfect summary for why politics have become so divisive. I am a republican; yes, I get a ton of shit for it too. Some people think I believe in the right side of this graph. This is how they view me. I don’t believe social progress means the status quo, or that the world is fine as it is. … Read MoreNone of my friends who are Republican would say that either. Most of the negative view points here end up on the right side, and not only is it not true in my experience, I don’t this it is a mistake. My parents are republican but they were not strict, I did not live in an atmosphere of ‘reward and punishment’. Does that mean I belong to the left? I do believe that one should work for what they have and give back whenever they can. The latter is a quality that’s supposed to be left. I see many values on the left side that apply to many of my Republican counterparts, but few on the right side that apply to anyone normal that I know. Characterizing the right in this extreme manner pushes people to the left because the definitions given are so negative, while the left remains mostly positive and centrist throughout. Sure there are crazies on either end of the spectrum, but none of those qualities are listed on the left. I am hard pressed to see the downside of labeling oneself a liberal these days. Definitions of right and left like this are, in my view, intentionally skewed to push individuals to identify with the liberal outlook. Maybe that is why those friends graphs that were bouncing around a few weeks back had such a huge proportion of respondents on facebook identifying with Democrats. The right has been vilified. If you define the right in the rigid, unfriendly terms shown here, you will find yourself on the left pretty quickly.
Democrats, that is American Democrats should not be on the left, they should be on the right (but to the left of Republican). Both are conservative right wing parties.
Only Europe’s Socialdemocrat and Socialist Parties would belong to the left. Well nowadays even Europe’s socialdemocrats and socialist are right wing parties, there is no left anymore.
Completely agree with the above statements that the US graphic is biased heavily towards the left. The terminology has a very negative tone when referring to the right with terms such as “homeless = no work ethic” and “votes for aggression.” These statements are wildly unfounded, unsupported, and simply untrue.
It also implies, by creating a polarizing left vs right setup, that while the left has qualities like empathy, nurturing the young, and self-fulfillment, the right must have little-to-none of those qualities. All while painting a picture of the right as war-mongers without empathy who are strict, religious nut-jobs. If the author truly believes this, he doesn’t know very many honest, average US Republicans.
Basing something on the sensationalistic spew of media pundits is ridiculous and not worth publishing. This information is not beautiful, nor is it accurate.
Republican ‘Don’t Tax and Spend’ should be ‘Borrow and Spend’
You missed the most important point.
Both sides are liars and both will change their mind on an issue if it means more votes.
Go study history, then try again. Maybe a Venn Diagram would be more useful and would also allow you to include libertarians.
The chart should be “individualism versus collectivism.” Where individual freedom is paramount, you’ll often find Dems ad Reps in complete agreement. I vote for whichever candidate is on the side of freedom: anyone who loves their own life must feel that way. I will not submit my life to another’s caprice. When the GOP candidate wants to abridge freedom, I vote against them, and vice versa.
In general, that means, for me that “right” and “left” are meaningless labels. What is “right-wing” for example, about saying you’d prefer less federal income tax but don’t want to see government interfere with sexual behavior? Those two ideas are consistent: FREEDOM!
Most liberty-minded folks can’t see why anyone would care what people do in their bedroom. That same person, though, may not appreciate seeing their kids forced into a bus to a school miles further away when there’s one a few blocks away. So, that person gets called a “Rightwinger” and lumped in with beliefs he doesn’t hold. It’s nuts.
My politics are: to each his own, mind your own business, and leave me alone. According to this chart, I might be a leftist, or I might be a rightwinger. So thus it is useless.
Jon: Remember that civil rights legislation was primarily passed by Republicans in Congress, which was founded as the anti-slavery party… with the Dems being the party of the KKK and George Wallace. The very first black senators and congressmen were all Republicans.
I’ll agree with most of the things you say, but one thing you got wrong was your note to jon. In America, there was a gradual ideological switch between republicans and democrats, which came about around the early to mid 1900s, and a bit of the tail end of the 1800s.
During the Progressive period, There was a growing Fiscal conservative wing of the Republican party (President Taft was a member of this wing), which opposed the more Traditionally Liberal wing (President Teddy Roosevelt was a member of this wing). During this same time, during the power struggle between Taft’s wing, which began to take over the Republican Party, and Roosevelt’s wing, which became the Progressive party, Woodrow Wilson, a member of the more liberal wing of the Democratic party, took the election. The Progressive party dissolved, and its members split apart again, some rejoining the Republican party, and some joining the Democrats, which strengthened the liberal wing of the Democratic party (Though due to the strength of the Democratic party in the south, they were still very conservative), and strengthened the Growing conservatism of the Republican party.
Zoom forward to Herbert Hoover, a Fiscal conservative, who was blamed for the Great Depression becoming as bad as it became. FDR then took the helm, after the next election, and his Liberal policies with regards to the New Deal drew more liberals under the Democratic party, and similarly, conservatives moved more towards the Republican Party (though as we can see in Dwight D Eisenhower, they were still fairly Socially liberal).
The main things that solidified the conservatism of the Republicans were the McCarthyism of leading Republicans, such as Nixon, and the growth of Civil Right support from the Democratic party. Much of the conservative support for the Democratic party came from the south; Once JFK and to a greater extent LBJ passed Laws regarding Civil Rights, and LBJ’s Great Society, The South fled from the Democratic party, and to a big extent, cost Democrats heavily. This had the result of pretty much swapping the ideology of the parties over the course of ~100 years.
Although, we still need to remember, not even this is all that true; The parties which were around during the 1800s (or even the late 1700s) were not recognizable on this mono-axis system. The Democrats (and Antifederalists) had a lot of similarities to the Libertarians: Keep the government (read: Federal Government) out of our money, and our lives. The Republicans (and Whigs, and Federalists) were more willing for the Federal Government to regulate things. Most of this was part of a power struggle between Federal and State Government. Democrats weren’t even like Libertarians, because they still wanted governmental power, but they wanted it in the hands of the state. Republicans merely wanted power out of the hands of the state, because they saw the power abuses that the states would do, and they feared smaller decentralized tyrannies more than a central tyranny. So, yeah… I spent way too much time on this, but I hope this helps a bit.
I have to agree with Peter, this chart is certainly beautiful, but as a conservative I feel that this unfairly demonizes me as a callous, heartless, curmudgeon that only cares about my own interest and lacks any understanding of empathy or kindness. Conservatives are people who also seek improvement of society not in ways that benefit just themselves but benefit society as a whole. We just feel that (most) liberals are misguided and naive in their approaches to solve the problems of the world.
For the record I’m also an atheist, a scientist, and someone who believes that fulfillment, not wealth, is what matters most in a persons life.
Can’t view the full image because you’ve disabled the scrollbars in the full size image.
For those complaining about elements being protraied in a negative light, look at it this way:
If you have a criteria, whatever it may be, and you go to place it in the Left or Right column, you have to ask not “if all of group A follows criteria X” but rather “of criteria X, which group is more likely meet that criteria”
In other words, instead of looking at as “All Republicans have aggressive traits”, which may NOT be true, its more accurate to think of it as “of either group, the most likely to have aggressive traits are the Republicans”, which would be closer to the truth.
Its the result of this format (which, in the real world, is actually a good predictor model for things like party affiliation in a two-party system come voting day) that causes the “but im not like that” issues.
It’s impossible to be completely unbiased about things like this; in fact, any attempt to paint politics as a spectrum, or especially as a binary system, is itself a kind of bias.
That said, I don’t have too many quibbles with it. My own cynical version would look like this:
LEFT: people are important
RIGHT: money is important
How is this anything but a pretty-looking collection of stereotypes?
First of course: I love your blog and consider that you are doing a fine service for humanity. However.
This one doesn’t work for me at all. It’s very nicely visualised, given the data set. The problem here is GIGO: Garbage In, Garbage Out. The input is a mishmash of stereotypes and false dichotomies.
As you say: “the political spectrum is not quite so polarised [...] But this is how it’s mostly presented via the media”. Well, indeed. I would hope though that we could use data to show underlying truths, instead of received ideas.
To the red vs. blue people: It really does make sense to reverse the colours in the international version.
Here in Australia we get a *lot* of US political news. Particularly at election time (which seems to go for a year or two). Nonetheless it throws me every time I see the Republicans coloured red. Ever hear of Reds Under The Bed? Keep The Red Flag Flying? Red China?
Here in the rest of the world, we associate red very strongly with communism and to a lesser degree socialism; and blue with conservatism. And that’s despite the fact that the US does it backwards.
OMG they showed a woman with a baby, it must mean women need to stay in the kitchen! Grow up Kate you make all of us women look like buffoons. The chart needs some work, but for a very simplistic overview it works.
I’m just speculating here, but I’d be prepared to bet that the creators of this graphic would identify themselves with the left side, as the characterization of the right seems to reflect the left’s traditional picture of the right, rather than the right’s traditional picture of themselves. Perhaps what might be warranted is another pass on the design after actually talking to the partisans on both sides to see what they believe, rather than relying on one side’s caricature of the other.
It is well-designed. But, frankly, much of it reads as how the Left would describe the Left and Right, such as the implication that respect and fear are social virtues among the Right.
I think you did a fantastic job.
I also think that some of the “complaints” here are correct.
I think the disconnect is that you beautifully capture the perception most people have of left/right, whereas those that commented were looking for you to capture the reality.
e.g Does the right actually believe in military operations more than the left? Does the left actually believe in more government interference in our social lives than the right? In reality, probably “no”, but the perception is most definitely “yes.”
Wes:
In most of the world, red=left and blue=right. This was also true in the U.S. until very recently — Joe McCarthy wasn’t railing against “Blues,” right? But leave it to Americans, probably the most history-less people on Earth, to get it backwards.
Overall I think it has the potential to be a brilliant piece. Lots of good comments above. One issue I have:
The (false) dichotomy between doves and hawks. There are just as many right-leaning voters that feel the US is stretched too think and does not use its military in as efficient a manner as it should (realists or so-called off-shore balancers) as there are left-leaning voters that believe the military should be used judiciously for liberal internationalist causes (e.g. peacekeeping, intervention in civil wars or despotic regimes where human rights violations loom large, etc).
Yeah, I also want to know why the Left is colored red and the Right blue. All that effort and to get the colors wrong, just seems a bit lazy to me. If you are going to take the time to do something, take the time to do it right.
Saying the left wants to interfere in social and societal areas and that the Right doesn’t is just wrong. Think Gay rights and Terri Schivo and Pot laws. The right loves to interfere when it involves kicking a hippie or placating a fundie
It’s worth noting that even in the USA, the red-vs-blue split is less than 10 years old – prior to the 2000 election, most networks did not consistently use the same color for parties during different election cycles.
Your Left v.Right Concept Chart? Just a start.
A fully frontal verbal v. rather pale background art.
Contextural layout could be more smart,
Add some focus on ways that our hemispheres part.
A foundation to build from, and one quite stout
So left-brain framed in duality, what you tout
Polarity permeating, plurality gets the flout
Verticality missing, not even about?
Bottom Up, Top Down; Consensus v. Clout
Contradictions abound, yet nary a shout.
Control v. Passion; Faith v. Doubt
Can God’s moral absolutists, so devout,
Let grassroots secular movements sprout?
Corporate GoodsCollective Good?
So little exposed of what’s under the hood.
No matter the system the puppets will dance.
The profit$ keep keep flowing, but into whose pants?
Keep them TVs glowing and we’ll all watch in trance
As the talking head lies frame our national stance.
Endless wars kept going, how can peace have a chance?
All our visceral instincts are virtually lanced.
A control nexus floats out of view of this chart.
Where some few have honed their techniques to an art.
Will this chart’s narrow paradigm view give a start
To the actions needed to upset their cart?
I completely agree with EGaffney. This describes how the Left view themselves and the Right. Way too brutish descriptions are used for the Right. For example, stating that the Right views the world as “Fine as it is.” I think this is a great start, though!
What the hell is the difference between ethics and morals?
This chart is ridiculous. So people on the “right” want to preserve things as they are, but look to the past? Huh?
You can have self-defense, openness, empathy, and discipline, can you not?
Ridiculous over simplification.
Stupid chart.
Surely the Republicans with the extremist Christian views should be more far right than the Conservatives?
You have one dimension to little to accuratly describe the diffrerent political views. See http://www.politicalcompass.org/
Otherwise, neat.
Couple things. Conservatives and right wingers gladly interfere in society and social lives along certain lines. For example their opposition to gay marriage, recreational drug use, and public nudity.
Also, you put equity on the conservative side, but equity means giving to each according to his/her need. That’s how we use it in the school system anyhow. Equity is used to mean giving each child what they need to succeed according to their learning style, learning needs, cultural background, and so forth. Conservatives would advocate such a thing.
What they believe in, rather, is equality. Or at least they think of it that way. They believe in the illusion that everyone is born with the same opportunities and anyone can make it if they work hard enough regardless of their circumstances.
But, in general, I enjoyed the chart.
Very nice thinking and execution and well done… structured visual thinkers of the world unite!!!
John