WorldlyWiseman wrote:
-snip-
Indeed, I have to agree that the chart has problems but it is--for most politicians and government major--an easy way to determine which ideology you're aligned to.
The one I showed is a quick-google turn up; ones I'm using differs slightly with moderates in the middle, conservatives on the right, and liberals on the left (the one I googled up has liberals in the middle). Sometimes, bias on these charts are present--in this case, the explanation on 'liberals' where it actually applies to moderates while 'socialists' explanation applies to liberals. Don't get confused between liberals and libertarians! They sound the same, but they're pretty much at the end of each spectrum. This applies to almost everyone in this world.
Also, it is true that a fascist government owns the State's industries--but that's what makes it fascists in the first place, right? A fascist government meant control over the State with the laid-out laws being absolute and supreme military control. As Benito Mussolini once quoted, 'the state is supreme'. Nazism is another form of fascism that is 'racial-driven', so never group them the same as the rest of 'fascism'.
Anyway, do note that the political spectrum comes in a semi-circle. The communists are on the far-left (again, communism comes in many flavors. Marxists, Leninists, Stalinists, Maoists, and Kim Il Sung-ists(?) and they are all different from one another. If Marx was still alive and saw Russia before the collapse, China, and North Korea, he'll cry tears of blood.) and fascism is on the far-right. What's interesting is that the more 'extreme' you go on either of these spectrum the closer they are together until eventually they will meet in the center and left no distinction between fascism and communism with both sharing the same methods of execution on running the State (with a slight variation in 'text'). It being a semi-circle in design tells the irony of the two opposing sides of the political spectrum that the more extreme both sides go, they'll end up just the same in the end.
There's also the issue with social-conservatives (I call them 'S-cons' or 'scons') and the Neo-liberals (N-iberals/Niberals). The main weakness with the chart comes only with a generalized and simplified way of aligning ideology, but it doesn't determine
party alignment. Someone who is a scons would might as well join a conservative party to gain popular support, same goes for the Niberals joining a liberal party--in the US, it's like the tea party joining the Republicans. They're not popular (maybe), but they do so in order to gain a 'voice' in the election and--if lucky--one of their candidates appeal to the majority and get appointed.
In Japan, the government runs almost like a British parliament (called the Diet), but not quite the same. They have two parties--similarly conservatives and liberals like the US--with the former holding most of the seats since 1945 if memory serves me correctly (although recently, their liberal party won so that's a change). Japan's political situation is unique though that it has a lot of resigns from office--the most recent one was after the earthquake and Fukushima where Prime Minister Naoto Kan resigned from office.
...
...
...
anyway, that is somewhat out of topic. Now, what made me believe Shizune would be a conservative (a 'Republican' is a party; so is a 'Democrat') in a sense was how she would preserve the common 'ROE' (Rules of Engagement) in life. She's the type of person who I see would follow a rule to-the-letter and would often sacrifice 'rights' for 'freedom' (these two topics are subjective). Misha, on the other hand (and following her preference) would be more on the liberal side of the spectrum. BUT! Considering what you pointed out, she may as well be a moderate who runs on both ends of the spectrum.
...shit, I just let myself go did I...?