Catch 22: Politics in Action: On the assumption that politicians accepted a fundamental three way split in social-ethics, as against a break down in society and conflict, or chaos. It is unlikely that they would employ names for their parties and philosophies quite the same as I have used. They need to attract the electorate, or gull them, as may be. And the fundamental extremes will be toned down considerably.
Popular names will be employed. The anarchist wing will vaunt its belief in freedom and liberalism. The authoritarian wing will vaunt its belief in law and order. And the altruist wing will perhaps speak of social justice. In any case they will all justify themselves as providing the best for the national future. More subtly perhaps the authoritarian wing will manipulate social convention so as to convince people they should accept the established authority – China and Russia spring to mind for some reason.
At the heart of any manipulation of opinion would presumably be the way people are permitted ‘freedom of speech’. This can mean anything from unfettered rampant freedom, to polite freedom of discussion, to freedom only in politically respectable subjects. The latter instance can mean nothing more than using the suffix ‘phobia’ so as to preclude criticism of various ‘cultures’. The use of the term ‘culture’ to cover almost anything is dangerous – for altruists. Especially where a very inexact category of ‘religion’ is included as culture. It is surely obvious that religions, as they exist, include within them, cosmology, ethics, and culture of an innocuous kind. Ethical values include the term ‘diversity’ but this is directed at culture and does not signify rampant hedonism – as the way anarchism is most likely to be used.