Enter your mobile number below and we'll send you a link to download the free Kindle App. Then you can start reading Kindle books on your smartphone, tablet, or computer - no Kindle device required.
Getting the download link through email is temporarily not available. Please check back later.

  • Apple
  • Android
  • Windows Phone
  • Android

To get the free app, enter your mobile phone number.

Kindle Price: £1.56
includes VAT*
* Unlike print books, digital books are subject to VAT.
Read this title for free. Learn more
Read for £0.00
with Kindle Unlimited

These promotions will be applied to this item:

Some promotions may be combined; others are not eligible to be combined with other offers. For details, please see the Terms & Conditions associated with these promotions.

Deliver to your Kindle or other device

Deliver to your Kindle or other device

The Three Languages of Politics by [Kling, Arnold]
Kindle App Ad

The Three Languages of Politics Kindle Edition

4.3 out of 5 stars 3 customer reviews

See all formats and editions Hide other formats and editions
Amazon Price
New from Used from
Kindle Edition
"Please retry"

Length: 54 pages Word Wise: Enabled Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
Page Flip: Enabled

Kindle Books from 99p
Load up your Kindle library before your next holiday -- browse over 500 Kindle Books on sale from 99p until 31 August, 2016. Shop now

Product details

  • Format: Kindle Edition
  • File Size: 230 KB
  • Print Length: 54 pages
  • Simultaneous Device Usage: Unlimited
  • Sold by: Amazon Media EU S.à r.l.
  • Language: English
  • ASIN: B00CCGF81Q
  • Text-to-Speech: Enabled
  • X-Ray:
  • Word Wise: Enabled
  • Enhanced Typesetting: Enabled
  • Average Customer Review: 4.3 out of 5 stars 3 customer reviews
  • Amazon Bestsellers Rank: #167,699 Paid in Kindle Store (See Top 100 Paid in Kindle Store)
  •  Would you like to give feedback on images or tell us about a lower price?

Customer Reviews

4.3 out of 5 stars
5 star
4 star
3 star
2 star
1 star
See all 3 customer reviews
Share your thoughts with other customers

Top Customer Reviews

Format: Kindle Edition Verified Purchase
In this book Kling sets out a certain way of looking at the way people view the political spectrum. To a UK based reader the 3 pole set up feels a bit US orientated, but still interesting. It is pointed out that each uses different language, an idea that is better developed elsewhere. Ultimately left with the feeling that the idea had not been fully developed.
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
Format: Kindle Edition Verified Purchase
Theory, and application condensed into a very short structure. Its easy to imagine I am exaggerating but I would probably assign this to all young students, before they get engaged in politics, to have a more or less objective view of the different opinions people will have later in life.
Comment Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse
Format: Kindle Edition Verified Purchase
Kling sets out a model to explore how different groups arrive at their political views. His approach illustrates how we can talk past each other, and hence each side feels the other is foolish or corrupt - when if we adopted their value set we may even agree. This is a great complement to his blog (thankfully started after a gap when he left econlog). There is a risk with any opinionated writer that they defend their views, and confirmation bias kicks in for the reader (pro or anti). Kling avoids that here, in a concise argument.
Comment One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you? Yes No Sending feedback...
Thank you for your feedback.
Sorry, we failed to record your vote. Please try again
Report abuse

Most Helpful Customer Reviews on Amazon.com (beta)

Amazon.com: HASH(0x91a764a4) out of 5 stars 72 reviews
47 of 50 people found the following review helpful
HASH(0x91a835e8) out of 5 stars How to better think and communicate, in less than an hour 21 April 2013
By Amazon Customer - Published on Amazon.com
Format: Kindle Edition Verified Purchase
With this extended essay, economist and blogger Arnold Kling grapples with the problem of intelligent, well-meaning and decent people talking past each other on the critical issues of the day. How can this be? What is the solution?

Arnold Kling has a hypothesis, which he calls the 'Three-axis Model'. In his model, we each have a way we tend to think and communicate about issues. These ways have polarized along three different axes (I'll get to them in a moment). Just as right handed people use their right hand without thinking, we tend to think and communicate at our comfortable point in the spectrum of each axis. This serves to quickly validate our existing views, allow us to discard discordant information and reinforces us within our tribe of similar believers. Unfortunately, just as using the wrong hand is awkward and obviously wrong, these ways are so different from how people polarized on other axes think that it marks us for dismissal by their tribes, even as it reinforces them in their own.

The challenge then is, how do we step back from these dominant ways to thinking to see the world through the eyes of others and communicate with them on terms they would understand and recognize, rather than dismiss? How do you have a discussion that informs, rather than one that simply reinforces the existing polarization? Arnold Kling here outlines the beginnings of an answer.

To get to his answer, he starts by hypothesizing three polarized axes of thought:

oppressor/oppressed [naturally preferred by progressives]

civilization/barbarism [naturally preferred by conservatives]

freedom/coercion [naturally preferred by libertarians]

Few of us are so one dimensional as to be entirely along one axis, but generally there is an axis we tend to automatically turn to without thinking. If we actually think, it can be different, but as Daniel Kahneman persuasively argues in Thinking, Fast and Slow, we do this far less often than we realize.

Even when presented with an issue about which we would all agree, the three different axes still produce discord. The holocaust, for example. Seen along the oppressor/oppressed axis it becomes a prime example of the evils of allowing anti-semitism. That is, the deliberate creation of an oppressed group. Along the civilization/barbarism axis, it is a prime example of moral values collapsing when a nation's institutions are subverted. For freedom/coercion, it becomes an example of what goes wrong with unchecked state power. Despite agreeing on the evil, each solution is at cross purposes to the other and marks you for dismissal by those operating instinctively along a different axis.

Arnold Kling does not ask anyone to change their views, but he does challenge his readers to develop the capacity to think along the other axes, not in the caricatured ways permitted of the other axes by your own, but in ways that would be recognized as valid by those operating on that axis (Bryan Caplan's 'Ideological Turing Test'). If nothing else, it will improve our ability to understand those coming from a different perspective, to communicate effectively with them and gain some skepticism for views that would otherwise reassuringly resonate with your own. Well practiced, this would momentarily trump instinctive thinking and briefly allow deliberate thought processes to be engaged.

We may not change any minds, including our own, but we will weaken the disconcerting tribal barriers emerging in the modern political debate, reduce the level of polarization across the axes of thought and more easily recognize when the opposites in our discussion are being well meaning and reasonable, albeit with a different perspective.

If, like me, you fear that our institutions will be gravely challenged in the coming years, are concerned about the erosion of our freedoms and worry about the impact this will have on the weakest among us (see how I tried to use language from all three axes!), then you owe it to yourself to practice the capacity to engage in a way that speaks to all of the participants in the debate.

All this for less than an hour of my time and cheaper than a gourmet cup of coffee.
12 of 13 people found the following review helpful
HASH(0x91a83834) out of 5 stars If you want to write about political issues, read this first! 16 April 2013
By F. Bailey Norwood - Published on Amazon.com
Format: Kindle Edition Verified Purchase
It is rare to see an author treat all political flavors with both objective scrutiny and respect. This book can really help you see through the eyes of different political ideologies. If you want to speak or write about political issues, you should read this first to improve your understanding of political alliances and communicate better to a diverse audience.

Well written. Pleasantly succinct. Awards to the author!

Bailey Norwood
9 of 10 people found the following review helpful
HASH(0x91a837f8) out of 5 stars An insightful model for understanding ideological differences. 15 May 2013
By Douglas - Published on Amazon.com
Format: Kindle Edition Verified Purchase
Kling has been laying out his "three axes" model on his blog for several months now. This short kindle book explains the basic idea and then expands upon it. For the most part, I think Kling's model is accurate and effective as a means of understanding ideological positions and the language used to support them. The shortness of the book is a blessing, because the power of Kling's system is that it's so simple; it doesn't need a 300-page treatment.

That said, I do wish that Kling had spent a little more time discussing applications of the three axes to specific political issues -- including ones that don't seem to fit the mold (though I think most do). Also, some of the examples he does use aren't as "clean" as they could be, and as a result they may undersell his model. For instance, Kling uses the mortgage finance crisis as a leading example. But because Kling is an expert on the subject, he goes into greater depth and complexity on the issue than needed, when the power of his three-axes model is really in explaining the broad outlines of ideological positions rather than the nuances. The resulting analysis is somewhat messy.

Nevertheless, Kling's model is useful and (usually) accurate, and it could prove the basis for a whole research program in political science. On those grounds alone, it gets a thumbs-up.
9 of 11 people found the following review helpful
HASH(0x91a83aec) out of 5 stars A book that tries to understand, not defeat, opposing viewpoints 26 April 2013
By The Langrills - Published on Amazon.com
Format: Kindle Edition Verified Purchase
The gist of the book is: political discourse tends to run along three axes, which are incommensurable. Liberals tend to judge along an oppressor-oppressed axis, Conservatives along a barbarian-civilization axis, Libertarians along a coercion-freedom axis. The purpose of the book is not to deconstruct and criticize what he sees as the dominant heuristics of each group, but to use them to help readers get into their ideological opposition's shoes.

The strong point of this book is in trying to put the reader into his or her ideological opponents' shoes. He brings up the ideological turing test (created by Bryan Caplan) which asks: if you were put in a room with your ideological others, could you pass as one of them? Psychology finds that, on average, liberals think they can make better conservatives than conservatives, and vice versa. Neither is right.

Now on to the parts of the book I disagreed with. Kling compares the diverging languages to an 'audible' in football: a purposeful confusion of signs to make sure the opposition doesn't know what is going on. This seems farfetched to me. Diverging language among groups that are so large, tends to be an unintentional process that indicates that there are few contacts between groups. Polite society has politics as one of its taboos, and people tend to view media outlets that they agree with in the first place; this means that the network of people actually using political language in conversation is very fractured, just what you would expect from people with little real contact (and strong enforcement within each social group).

His portrayal of the explanations for the financial crisis seemed a little problematic. The movie "Inside Job," which seems to be a very Progressive explanation of the financial crisis, is told with a strong appeal to the barbarian-civilization axis. The director chronicles the 'depravity' of bankers, interviewing former prostitutes and others who can attest to the barbarousness of bankers. The barbarian-civilization heuristic seems to be somewhat common in Progressive discussions: witness discussions about gay marriage or creationism in schools. Their ideological opponents aren't oppressors (though in the former there is some of that), but barbarians who refuse to embrace civilization--a civilization that embraces science, and sees traditional hierarchies as barbaric (as well as oppressive).

These differences in interpretation notwithstanding, this is an excellent and quick read. It is a rare duck that tries to improve political discourse rather than score points for the author's team. There have been critics who argue that this book doesn't advance the academic literature on the cultural theory of preference formation, and so on, but these critics miss the point. As James Buchanan (the economist, not the president) was fond of saying, it takes repeated iterations to force alien concepts on reluctant minds. There are few concepts more alien than respecting your political opponents, and this is an excellent iteration of it.
3 of 4 people found the following review helpful
HASH(0x91a83b4c) out of 5 stars Interesting but thin 9 Aug. 2013
By Mark Charles - Published on Amazon.com
Format: Kindle Edition Verified Purchase
Review re Arnold Kling The Three Languages of Politics

The purpose of this short pamphlet is to reduce the conflict and animosity in political discourse and to promote cooperation and civil relations between individuals holding different political viewpoints. Your political viewpoint can be identified via a quiz at the beginning of the book.
Kling suggests each political viewpoint can be distinguished as lying primarily along one of thee axes that establish a heuristic or ideology for the language used by each of the three positions. The positions are Progressive, Conservative and Libertarian.
The axes are as follows: Progressives are primarily concerned with Oppressors and the Oppressed; Conservatives with Civilization vs. Barbarism; and Libertarians with Freedom vs. Coercion. These ideologies give rise to the differences in language used by each group and the language, Kling believes, serves to solidify in-group relations while separating one ideology from another.This leads to permanent disagreements between the groups.
Kling believes that differences between ideologies become exaggerated because people use motivated reasoning, i.e., reasoning directed by their ideology, to defend their own views. This follows from current work on decision making in which decisions seem often to be arrived at via a fast `intuitive' system, and full- fledged critical reasoning comes along later to defend one's views (for example, Kahneman, Haidt). Understanding how the languages differ may reduce emotionality thus allowing what Kling's calls constructive reason to be used that might lead individuals of various ideologies to reach agreement on some of the issues separating them.
Kling provides an excellent set of suggested readings that will direct readers to other approaches to this field. Notably, in my view, to Haidt's work (The Righteous Mind) which has pretty much the same goals as Kling's work but far more data than Kling. Haidt provides `moral' axes on which the various political ideologies can be placed. Haidt's work is cross cultural while Kling's concern is more limited to the political elite in the U.S. It isn't clear, for example, how Kling's axes would work in countries outside the U.S.
There may be other problems. As other reviewers have pointed out, the examples given by Kling are not always convincing. And in Chapter Seven Kling introduces several additional characteristics of each political group. It is not clear that these additional characteristics flow from the three axes given above, are new axes, or just some other ingredients needed to make the scheme work. In any case, it raises question regarding the completeness of the three axes description.
Assuming that constructive reasoning will lead individuals of differing ideologies to converge to a solution to a problem may be somewhat unrealistic. Convergence requires that a problem have a unique solution, which is not necessarily the case. Isaiah Berlin points out that there may be problems that have no solution as well as problems that have a multitude of solutions. Convergence to a solution is by no means guaranteed.
Another problem is how to induce constructive reasoning. It may be more difficult that Kling hopes. Many people working in the area of decision making and reasoning argue that constructive reasoning is difficult to evoke, i.e., motivated reasoning is the norm (Haidt, Kahneman).
What can be done to encourage the use of constructive reasoning? One effort, `debiasing', is aimed at removing biases that prevent constructive reasoning (Lilienfeld, Ammirati and Landfeld). Another deals with changing and correcting stereotypes and stereotypical thinking. It is often found that stereotypes can be significantly reduced by having holders of different views work together. In a similar vein, Landemore and Mercier suggest that direct arguments between individuals holding different views may lead to greater understanding. It might also be that there are issues on which some members of even such extreme factions as the Tea Party and the Occupy Movement could agree on. And could cooperate on in attempting to achieve political change. Such cooperation might lead to less acrimony between the groups.
If you aren't familiar with the idea of sorting out political viewpoints in this way, the book will be a revelation. And the suggested readings will move you deeper into this area. If you are already familiar with this idea, the book is likely to seem a bit thin.
Were these reviews helpful? Let us know
click to open popover