I agree that the left/right libertarian/authoritarian political model can be quite helpful.

I think of my politics as small-“l” liberal (think JS Mill) which means I tend to agree with the left on social policy issues (gay rights, asylum seekers) and the right on economic policy ones (free markets, the benefits of globalisation). In my mind these positions are entirely consistent, but they seem a peculiar mix to people used to seeing them as necessary opposites. The four quadrant model explains this quite well.

I do think, however, that the modern political landscape doesn’t fit modern politics completely. Green politics, for example, can be authoritarian in some directions and libertarian in others. Identity politics bears some resemblance to old-fashioned Marxist class-based dualism. Both major parties have authoritarian-inclined and libertarian-inclined wings.

It’s a shame the article switches from a reasonably balanced attempt to describe the political landscape, to advocating a particular position within it. The second-last paragraph is largely a string of successive leftist clichés (“trickle down”, markets are “unfair”). This does not invite genuine debate.

Rhian well said.

In my view none of the parties have a stong presence on the personal liberty side of the equation at the moment. Some may for favorite targetted causes but as a general case I've not seen any indications that reducing government involvement in peoples day to day lives is an active policy of any party.

Likewise I don't see in practical terms that any are effectively reducing the gap between rich and poor, that gets too hard so instead they hit the middle hard to provide handouts to the rich and poor or the not not so poor but who qualify on some arbitrary basis - for instance first home buyers who can afford a brand new home and the builders who build those homes.

Lots of retoric about helping but often doing somwithout any concern for the hurt caused in the process or the inequalities introduced while trying to fight some other harm. Any body remember how expensive tradies gotand how hard it was to get small jobs done after Costello dipped into our taxes with his version of a first home owners grant to help the struggling building industry?

R0bert

Here is my attempt at a self-evident system – straightforward as a diagram – hope it works as a word description…

Draw and label an X axis which ranges from (L-R) ultra-sharers to ultra-selfish. This is the 'My Stuff' axis.

Draw and label a Y axis which ranges from (Btm-Top) ultra-sharers to ultra-selfish. This is the 'Our (Citizens') Stuff' axis.

On this simplified system as an example, Genghis Khan would plot close to the top right quadrant corner and Jesus Christ to the lower left quadrant corner.

Decide where you would place and then enjoy making plots against other people.

Rhian,
The Third Position was comprehensively defeated in 1945, after the performance given by Arthur Sinidinos and others in the senate today it looks as though the old "Anti Semitism" label is now being pinned on the Greens, which is weird because it's an obvious line of attack for the right, you'd have thought that they'd have come out with it from the start.
Maybe the problem is that we have politicians holding onto remnants of all three of the outdated, old fashioned political ideas and in lieu of coming up with a fourth or fifth position they're simply mixing and matching failed tactics from the past and trying to tell us it's new material.

Sorry Rhian.
I've mastered many adversities at work today, I'm tired and the first part of the above post came out wrong. What I'm saying is that neither Adolf Hitler nor Franklin D Roosevelt would be electable today, their Third Positions would be greeted by the electorate with a collective "So what?"
As Dr Tomislav Sunic is fond of pointing out, after 1991 all the hardcore Communists in his native Croatia suddenly became liberals and went around acting as if they'd invented the idea.
What we have today is not a "Third Way" it's just a lack of wholehearted belief in any of the three preceding "Big ideas", Vladimir Putin doesn't really profess socialism anymore but he's no liberal, ditto Ms Gillard, but neither of them are offering a new idea are they?

Jay

Liberalism means different things to different people, which is why I tried to identify which version I mean. To me, it’s a political philosophy grounded in respect for the dignity and autonomy of the individual. It tends to be egalitarian, non-conformist (unlike collectivist ideologies of both left and right which subsume the interests of the individual to what they perceive as “social” interest) and suspicious of attempts to use the levers of government to engineer a better society.

I don’t see liberalism as a “third way” between left and right, that’s what I’d call social democracy.

That some ex-communists identify themselves as liberals isn't surprising. A lot of ex-communists are also now greens or engaged in identity politics. Sometimes there conversions are genuine (the US neo-cons really are former Carterites who changed their minds), sometimes not. The real question is whether they are using new labels to promote and old agenda.

WmTrevor
If you haven’t seen it, you may find this political compass test quite entertaining – it uses a similar four quadrants approach to this article.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

Rhian,
Nah, what I meant was that Liberalism was the first "Big Idea" followed by Socialism and then the third positions of the 1930's, Fascism and the New Deal, they're all over and done with, all we've got now is people who don't really hold to a solid position and just pick and choose elements of all three as and when they need them.

Hadn't seen it, Rhian… I know it's ego, but I think my axis labelling is inherently more descriptive.

Nonetheless, I completed the compass test – whilst thinking the question phrasing and response options inadequate – to find the result put me shouldering aside Gandhi and the Dalai Lama!

Consequently, I am only wearing a bedsheet loincloth/toga as I type this. Thanks for that.