Political Ideologies in a Nutshell: Insights for Contemporary Voters (Part One)

By J André Faust (Nov 09, 2024)

Part One of Two

As we enter the eve of the Canadian federal election, gauging sentiment from social media posts suggests that Canadians are basing their judgments more on leaders' personalities than on political ideologies. Another important part of the voting equation is that many do not fully understand the complexities underlying our social and political issues. There are no simple solutions, as all of these issues are interconnected. A single solution can have a domino effect that permeates the entire social and political spectrum, with the potential to yield results far different from the intended outcome.

As individuals, we may hold beliefs aligned with multiple political ideologies and philosophies, but collectively, we often adhere to either Right- or Left-wing ideologies, which has unfortunately polarized many Canadians. Regrettably, political ideologies are not part of the regular school curriculum and are only available to those students who choose to study political science. Since the discipline of political science is so vast, very little time may actually be spent on political ideology and philosophy—resulting in voters focusing more on the personalities of politicians.

There are many political ideologies and philosophies, but fourteen common ones are generally recognized:

• Liberalism
• Conservatism
• Socialism
• Communism
• Fascism
• Anarchism
• Libertarianism
• Nationalism
• Environmentalism
• Progressivism
• Populism
• Democratic Socialism
• Theocracy
• Monarchism

To summarize each of these ideologies, starting with liberalism:

1. Liberalism
   • Emphasizes individual freedoms, democracy, and equality.
   • Advocates for limited government intervention in personal freedoms but often supports regulation to ensure social justice and equal opportunity.
2. Conservatism
   • Values tradition, stability, and continuity.
   • Supports limited government intervention in the economy but may favor laws that uphold traditional social values.
3. Socialism
   • Advocates for economic equality and public ownership of key resources and industries.
   • Seeks to reduce income inequality through government programs and welfare systems.
4. Communism
   • Envisions a classless, stateless society where the means of production are communally owned.
   • Emphasizes the abolition of private property and a collective ownership structure.
5. Fascism
   • Centralized authoritarian control, often combined with strong nationalism.
   • Opposes democracy, liberalism, and socialism; emphasizes loyalty to the state and often includes elements of social Darwinism.
6. Anarchism
   • Belief in stateless societies without hierarchical authority.
   • Emphasizes voluntary cooperation and self-managed communities.
7. Libertarianism
   • Stresses individual liberty, minimal government, and a free-market economy.
   • Advocates for a limited state, mainly to protect individual rights and property.
8. Nationalism
   • Emphasizes the interests of a particular nation or ethnic group, often prioritizing national identity and independence.
   • Can intersect with other ideologies but focuses on national sovereignty.
9. Environmentalism
   • Prioritizes ecological sustainability and conservation.
   • Often intersects with other ideologies, advocating for policy change to address climate and environmental issues.
10. Progressivism
    • Focuses on social reform, equality, and the protection of marginalized groups.
    • Often advocates for changes in government policy to address social issues and promote fairness.
11. Populism
    • Emphasizes the power of ordinary people over political elites or established institutions.
    • Can be left- or right-wing, depending on the specific focus and region.
12. Democratic Socialism
    • Combines democratic governance with socialist economic policies.
    • Advocates for welfare systems and regulation to ensure fair wealth distribution but retains democratic elections and individual freedoms.
13. Theocracy
    • A system of government where religious leaders or principles guide political decisions.
    • Common in countries where religion heavily influences laws and governance.
14. Monarchism
    • Advocates for the rule of a monarch (king, queen, or emperor), with varying degrees of power.
    • Monarchs may be absolute or constitutional, depending on the country and system.

Keep in mind that each ideology provides different perspectives on power, governance, and society, and often overlaps in modern politics as parties and movements adapt to changing social and economic conditions.

When each of these ideologies is closely examined, we find that each one is considerably more complex than the brief descriptions listed here.

Summary

As Canada approaches another federal election, it becomes evident that voter sentiment is often shaped by the personalities of party leaders rather than their political ideologies. This trend reveals a gap in public understanding of complex social and political issues. The piece examines fourteen prominent political ideologies—Liberalism, Conservatism, Socialism, Communism, Fascism, Anarchism, Libertarianism, Nationalism, Environmentalism, Progressivism, Populism, Democratic Socialism, Theocracy, and Monarchism—each providing a unique perspective on governance, power, and societal structure.

Despite the diverse array of ideologies, Canadians largely align with either Right- or Left-wing perspectives, which has contributed to increased polarization. The article argues that this polarization may stem from a lack of ideological education in schools, as political ideologies are typically only addressed in elective political science courses. By outlining the core beliefs of each ideology, the discussion aims to enhance readers' understanding of these complex ideas and the intricate ways in which they intersect within society.

Conclusion

Political ideologies provide frameworks for understanding and addressing societal challenges, yet their complexity often leads to misunderstandings, oversimplifications, or neglect in public discourse. As Canadians prepare to vote, there is a need for greater ideological literacy to ensure that decisions are grounded in a true understanding of policy implications, rather than solely on the appeal of political personalities. Education in political ideologies could help bridge this gap, equipping future generations with the knowledge to engage meaningfully in civic life and to appreciate the multifaceted nature of governance. This piece serves as a starting point for those interested in delving deeper into the principles that shape political landscapes and influence collective decision-making.

---

Pre -Election: President Elect Donald Trump Promises To End Ukraine War

In examining President-elect Donald Trump's potential approach to the Ukraine war, there's a suggestion that he may pursue a resolution that favours Russian interests. From a game theory perspective, the United States currently imposes numerous sanctions on Russia. These restrictions are extensive: they limit Russia's access to international financial systems, prohibit transactions involving Russian sovereign debt, restrict imports of Russian oil, gas, and coal, and impose barriers on energy-related services connected to Russian production and exploration. These sanctions collectively aim to constrain Russia's economic capacity to continue its war efforts.

If the incoming Trump administration seeks to broker peace between Russia and Ukraine, a logical step might involve easing or even entirely removing these sanctions. By lifting restrictions, Trump could create an environment where Russia’s economy has the opportunity to recover and expand. This expansion would align with Russia’s interests and, in theory, could provide sufficient incentive for Russia to end hostilities with Ukraine.

However, taking this approach poses substantial risks. By lifting sanctions, the United States would likely strain its relationships with key allies who support these measures as part of a united front against Russian aggression. Such a move could be perceived by allies as an alignment with Russian interests, potentially triggering a backlash, including trade restrictions or other diplomatic consequences directed at the United States. This situation places the U.S. in a dominated strategy position: any choice that eases sanctions risks damaging its alliances and diplomatic standing, while maintaining sanctions could limit pathways to a peace agreement.

In this scenario, we face a "no-win" situation for the United States, where efforts to negotiate a favorable deal for Russia may lead to unintended consequences that weaken U.S. influence globally. Thus, President-elect Trump's options seem constrained, and any attempt to forge a peace agreement that provides Russia with a positive payoff could come at a steep diplomatic cost.

---

Beyond Free-Will: A Game Theory Perspective on Cialdini’s 7 Persuasion Principles

 

Every day, we are bombarded with information intended to shape our thinking and influence our choices, ranging from marketing strategies to political propaganda. Unfortunately, these methods often rely on subtle deception, creating a world where the line between genuine choice and manipulation is blurred. This situation raises a fundamental question: do we truly have free will?

This essay analyzes the principles of persuasion as defined by Robert Cialdini through the lens of game theory, drawing on insights from thinkers like Thomas Schelling and John von Neumann to explore how these principles play out in social interactions.

In his landmark 1984 book, *Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion*, Cialdini identified six principles of persuasion: Authority, Social Proof, Scarcity, Liking, Reciprocity, and Consistency. He later expanded this list to include a seventh principle, Unity, in a 2016 update. Each of these principles can be examined in the framework of game theory to understand how individuals and groups respond strategically to influence.

Authority

Cialdini’s first principle, Authority, demonstrates how people are inclined to follow directions from figures perceived as knowledgeable or legitimate, even if these directions conflict with personal ethics. The famous Milgram experiment, conducted by Yale University’s social psychologist Stanley Milgram, demonstrated this tendency. Participants were instructed to perform actions that contradicted their moral beliefs, yet most complied simply because the instructions came from an authority figure.

In game theory, people align with authority figures to reduce personal risk and potentially gain rewards or avoid punishments. Authoritative figures often leverage this dynamic, securing compliance by establishing themselves as symbols of power or expertise. Dictators and influential leaders often use this strategy to great effect.

Social Proof

Social Proof, or what Cialdini terms the “wisdom of the crowd,” operates on the principle that individuals look to the behavior of others when making decisions, especially in uncertain situations. From online ratings to popular trends, people tend to mimic what they see others doing, assuming that if many approve of something, it must be valuable.

Game theory explains Social Proof as a coordination game, where individuals use others' actions as cues in uncertain situations. The behaviors of the group help individuals decide whether to adopt certain beliefs, buy a product, or support a cause, creating a feedback loop that reinforces popularity.

Scarcity

Scarcity is another powerful motivator. According to Cialdini, when people believe that a product or opportunity is limited, its value seems to increase. Advertisers often exploit this by creating a sense of urgency, claiming limited availability or time-bound offers. The fear of missing out triggers a primal instinct to act quickly.

In game theory, scarcity translates into a game of competition, where players try to secure scarce resources by being the first to act. This creates an artificial race for limited goods, often driving demand even when supply could meet it. Individuals employ strategies to maximize their chances of acquiring these "scarce" resources, especially when availability is manipulated to appear lower than it truly is.

Liking

People are more easily influenced by those they find likable, a principle Cialdini refers to as Liking. Similarity, familiarity, and cooperation foster likability and make individuals more susceptible to persuasion. This principle explains why “word-of-mouth” recommendations from friends are so effective.

In game theory, Liking functions as a game of trust. Positive relationships and shared trust lead individuals to cooperate more readily, with each player expecting mutually beneficial outcomes. This trust can significantly impact decisions, as individuals are more likely to take recommendations from people they like.

Reciprocity

Reciprocity is the idea that people feel obligated to return favors. Cialdini observes that people are more likely to respond positively to those who have already done something for them. For example, a restaurant that offers a free mint may receive higher tips as patrons feel compelled to reciprocate this small gesture.

Game theory frames Reciprocity as a “tit-for-tat” strategy in repeated games, where cooperation is encouraged by the expectation of future interactions. Failing to reciprocate could damage one’s reputation and hinder future cooperation. Thus, players are motivated to maintain a cycle of mutual benefit, reinforcing positive interactions.

Consistency

Consistency taps into our desire to appear reliable and true to our commitments. If we take a small step in one direction, like placing a small campaign sign on our lawn, we are more likely to agree to larger requests in the future. Cialdini explains that once people publicly commit to an idea, they are more likely to continue supporting it.

From a game theory perspective, Consistency is a cost-benefit analysis of behavior. By maintaining consistency with prior commitments, individuals avoid the social or reputational costs associated with changing positions. The drive for consistency encourages people to act in ways that reinforce their past behavior, reducing cognitive dissonance and projecting stability.

Unity

Cialdini’s final principle, Unity, refers to the influence of shared identity. When people feel they belong to a common group, they are more susceptible to persuasion from within that group. Family, nationality, and other forms of identity foster a sense of "one of us" that strengthens bonds and amplifies influence.

In game theory, Unity aligns with the dynamics of repeated games within a group setting, where individuals prioritize the collective good over personal gain. By promoting a shared identity, players work toward community goals and are motivated to enhance collective outcomes over individual ones.

Summary

This essay explores Cialdini’s principles of persuasion—Authority, Social Proof, Scarcity, Liking, Reciprocity, Consistency, and Unity—through the lens of game theory. Each principle reveals a strategic interaction in which individuals balance personal motives with social cues and potential rewards. Whether people comply with authority, follow the crowd, or reciprocate a favor, these behaviors can be understood as calculated moves within a complex social game.

Conclusion

Cialdini’s principles reveal that persuasion often operates as a calculated game, where individuals’ choices are subtly guided by powerful social cues. Game theory shows that these responses—whether to authority, social proof, or scarcity—follow predictable patterns shaped by external influences rather than entirely by conscious choice. This perspective brings the notion of free will into question: to what extent are we truly autonomous when so many of our decisions are influenced by forces we scarcely recognize?

By understanding these principles, we gain insight into how our thoughts and actions may be directed by strategic influences. Awareness of these dynamics can empower us to reclaim a measure of agency in our decision-making. While complete freedom from influence may be impossible in a highly interconnected world, recognizing the forces at play allows us to approach choices with greater intentionality, exercising what free will we do have with clearer understanding.

---

Breaking The Cycle: Solutions For Poverty Wages In A Rising Economy If Any

 

The majority will agree: every worker deserves, at minimum, a living wage—with enough left over for some disposable income at the end of the day.

The solution seems simple: raise the minimum wage to a standard that meets basic living needs. But here lies the paradox, an inflationary pressure. As the wage floor rises, those whose poverty wages were temporarily lifted soon find themselves back where they started, as costs inevitably climb. Meanwhile, all other wage earners gradually lose buying power. So, how do we break this inflationary cycle?

---

NDP Leader Comments as The Bloc Québécois Threatens to Topple Liberal Government

Video aired on CPAC on October 30, 2024

 Andre Faust (Oct 30, 2024)

If an election were called today, it seems nearly inevitable that the Liberal Party would face a resounding defeat. Current polls and the public discourse on social media echo a discontent that cannot be ignored. The Bloc Québécois has now issued an ultimatum to the Trudeau government: either support an increase in old-age pensions, or we’ll join forces with other parties to push for a vote of non-confidence.

Poised at the ready, Pierre Poilievre and the Conservatives recognize the opportunity before them. Knowing this could be their best shot at taking power, they would undoubtedly throw their support behind the Bloc to bring down the Liberal government. The question mark, however, lies with the NDP. While a premature election may not be in their favor—they need time to solidify their campaign strategy—they could still act as a spoiler, effectively paving the way for a Conservative victory. Regardless, the Trudeau government has seen its popularity dwindle over the past year. For the Liberals to reclaim their footing, it may be time for Trudeau to step aside for the party’s greater good.

Meanwhile, NDP leader Jagmeet Singh has declared his party’s opposition to the Bloc’s motion, refusing to play into Poilievre’s hands. Singh lists the challenges Canadians face—rising housing costs, soaring grocery bills, an overwhelmed healthcare system. Yet, therein lies a glaring gap: Singh, like his political counterparts, stops short of presenting concrete solutions.

So, whether an election comes early or waits until October 2025, Canadians deserve answers. Voters must demand clarity from all candidates: what are your party’s tangible solutions to the mounting problems this nation faces? In the end, the promise of change means little without a clear path forward.

---

Canada's Failing Health System For The Average Canadian

By J. André Faust 

Since 1970 our healthcare system has been degrading to such an extent that it no longer meets the needs of the average Canadian as Compared to the 70s', Canadians are forced to spend a ludicrous amount of time in the waiting in emergency waiting rooms for some; the wait time proves to be fatal.

Many New Brunswickers are without a family doctor and are on a waiting list to have a family doctor or nurse practitioner assigned to them, which could be years before their health needs are looked after. Statistically, seniors who are a product of the aging process can develop health issues, and in some cases, treatment early could prevent the condition from becoming potentially lethal later.

 What perplexes me is that the Canadian population, according to World Bank data available up to 2019, the population of Canada was approximately 21.37 million in 1970 as compared to today's population, which is 38.74 million and increasing. Obviously, looking at the population difference between 1970 and 2023, there were fewer tax dollars available, and GST/HST didn't exist. Yet most Canadians had family doctors, and wait times in the emergency room were nominal.

 Those born in the eighties and after would have no recollection of how good the Canadian health system was compared to today's health care system.

So, what happened, in the 70s, people were paying fewer taxes, yet getting better services. Today we pay much higher taxes yet receive less.

Something doesn't add up. In trying to unpack why Canadian healthcare has digressed to third-world levels in 4 + decades. Currently, the future doesn't look promising if this trend continues. 

There are several explanations for why our health system is in such a disarray,

Population Aging: Since the 1970s, the proportion of older adults in Canada has increased significantly, placing additional pressure on the healthcare system. Older adults typically have more complex health needs, and the increase in this demographic can strain healthcare resources.

The problem with the population ageing argument is that most of the war babies have died off, and because the cost of raising families limits the number of children each family has, which has become a problem within itself. With fewer Canadians being born means a loss of future workers. The population has increased because we bring in newcomers to fill that gap, which is a logical move to resolve worker shortages.

Increase in Chronic Diseases: Linked to the aging population, there has been an increase in chronic diseases like diabetes, heart disease, and cancer. Managing these conditions requires long-term healthcare services and resources, but with more and more seniors dying, there should be a corresponding decrease in the demand for age-related illnesses.

Rising Healthcare Costs: Medical technologies and pharmaceuticals have advanced rapidly since the 1970s. While these developments can improve care, they also tend to increase costs. Healthcare spending has continued to outpace economic growth and inflation in many developed countries, including Canada. How much are these costs lining the shareholders' pockets?

Workforce Shortages: There have been reported shortages of healthcare professionals in Canada, especially in rural and northern areas. This can lead to longer wait times for treatment and care, but the problem is much more profound; not only the rural areas are also experiencing a shortage, but so are the urban centers.

Equity Issues: There can be significant variation in access to healthcare services depending on where in Canada someone lives, their income level, their indigenous status, etc. These equity issues can create contribute to degradation in the overall system.

Wait Times: Despite Canada's universal healthcare system, wait times for certain procedures and specialist appointments can be long. This has been a persistent issue in the Canadian healthcare system from the 80s on.

Fragmented Care Delivery: There can be issues with the coordination of care, particularly for those with complex health needs. Patients may need to navigate various specialists and services, which can be challenging and inefficient if you don't have a family Dr.

Underinvestment in Prevention and Public Health: There is often a focus on acute, hospital-based care in Canada, with less investment in preventative measures and public health. This can lead to worse overall health outcomes and increased pressure on the healthcare system. While it may have some influence, there are many factors beyond what I have just listed.

Healthcare is a problem across Canada. One could summarize it into one main issue; that problem is all about money, and the political will is not there to ameliorate it.

We elect a government through a democratic process, first-past-the-post may not be the best system, but it remains within the concept of democracy.

Regardless of party colour, the government institution is a plutocracy.

The best explanation for a plutocracy that I have found is as follows:

Plutocracy is a term used to describe a form of government in which the wealthy have control or significant influence. The word comes from the Greek "ploutos," meaning wealth, and "kratos," meaning power or rule.

In a plutocracy, decision-making and policy-setting powers are largely or effectively controlled by the people with the most wealth, either directly or indirectly. This type of societal structure can exist within different forms of government, such as democracies or republics if the political power is heavily influenced by wealth and economic class.

That being said, history has repeatedly demonstrated the manifestation of the power elites' influence in getting billion-dollar handouts. For example, The Feds announced that Volkswagon would receive 13 Billion dollars over ten years for producing batteries for Electric Vehicles with the intent of creating thousands of jobs. If job creation is ever realized, that is another story.

The payout to Volkswagon is just on the incident. There have been many more.

From 2007 until 2019, the Federal, Provincial and local governments have given 352 Billion dollars to the Corporate welfare bums. It appears that power elites see their needs as paramount to the health needs of Canadians. Big pharmaceuticals owe the taxpayers 44 billion dollars for their role in the opioid epidemic. Add all the tax loops and tax incentives that the big corporation and money mongers receive. There should be enough money to pay competitive salaries for Doctors and anyone else in the healthcare profession.

The problem is that all governments look after the interests of the wealthy, and health care needs to be at the top of the list, not the bottom.

Another strategy is allowing qualified medical newcomers to practice medicine. If qualification is an issue, the solution is to have them do an internship.

Premier of Ontario Doug Ford is considering allowing doctors from out of province to practice in his province at salaries that exceed what the province of New Brunswick is willing to pay.

Another challenge is the debt load that a medical student must bear: four years for an undergraduate degree, then another four years for medical school at 25,000 per year, which translates to 200,000$, so why stay in a province that pays only peanuts? Since the 70s' the cost of attending post-secondary university or post-graduate has surpassed what most can afford to pay unless mummy or daddy can bankroll the costs.

The only way to change the government's priorities is through citizen action. That action may be in the form of protests. Press releases, strategic voting. The final word is "People before profits."

---

Understanding Socialism: Sharing and Caring for Everyone that Your Grade 5 Child can Understand

 By Andre Faust (Oct 23, 2024)

political and social ideologies are filled with complexities, and the "game" is influenced by so many factors that predicting outcomes is extremely difficult. Every ideology, including socialism, capitalism, or democracy, operates within unique cultural, historical, and economic contexts. Even the most carefully designed systems can have unpredictable results due to human behaviour, random events, and unforeseen circumstances.

When I look at the most common posts regarding political ideologies, I realize that many who post have little to no understanding of political ideologies, provincial and international relations (geopolitics), and how they are interconnected. (Fortunately, there are others who have a deep understanding of these relationships and comprehend how the game is played.)

I look at our southern neighbour, the United States, and the way they handle their politics reminds me of classic TV shows like "The Gong Show" or "The Mickey Mouse Club." The band Green Day captured this sentiment well with their song "American Idiot." Why do Canadians want to become Americanized? Character assassinations does not deal with issues that we face as a country.

Both Trump and Harris have used false information and half-truths. The only difference between the two is that Harris is more refined when it comes to debates.

What amazes me is that some very intelligent people still can't grasp these concepts. Despite life experience or formal post-secondary education, they seem to have no clue how the game is played. In general, it seems like they can't see past their own backyard.

What gave me the idea was a Facebook post in response to my critique of the capitalist system. The person replied, "Is socialism better?" Before answering, I wanted to understand his level of knowledge, so I asked, "How do you define socialism?" There was no response.

As a result, I formulated a definition of socialism in terms that a fifth grader would understand.

Socialism: Socialism is like when a group of friends decides to share everything so that no one is left out. Imagine you and your friends all have toys, but some have a lot, and some have very few. In socialism, everyone agrees to share the toys so that everyone has enough to play with. It's a system where people work together and make sure everyone gets what they need, like food, housing, and education, so no one goes without. The idea is to help everyone have a good life, not just a few people. - that is as simple as it gets.

The common one dimensional rebuttals are:

1. Less Motivation to Work Hard: Imagine if everyone in your class got the same grade, no matter how hard they studied. Some might think, "Why should I study if I’m going to get the same grade anyway?" Socialism can sometimes make people feel less motivated to work hard because everyone gets the same rewards, even if they don’t do the same amount of work.

2. Not Enough Freedom to Choose: In socialism, the government often makes decisions about what jobs people can have or what things they can buy. Some people don’t like this because they feel they should be free to make their own choices, like choosing their favourite games or hobbies, instead of someone deciding for them.

3. Sharing Might Not Always Be Fair: While sharing is a good thing, some people think socialism isn’t always fair because if someone works very hard and someone else doesn’t work much at all, they both still get the same amount of things. Some people believe that those who work harder should get more rewards.

At this tells me is that they don't understand socialism, they only have a general idea, but there are many other forms of socialism.

To provide some examples:

Many forms of socialism emphasize meeting people's basic needs while still encouraging creativity and hard work. Some people are motivated by more than just money, like contributing to their community or gaining recognition for their skills.

Still in other versions of socialism, people still have many choices, but the government or community helps provide basic services, like healthcare and education, so everyone can live well.

Lastly, those who have a worldview of socialism, beyond what the propaganda machine tries to sell, will argue that fairness also means ensuring no one struggles to survive just because they had fewer opportunities or faced challenges beyond their control, like illness or bad luck.

---