In the vast ocean of political reality and ideology, interests and ideas surge like tides. Classic left/tight and conservative/progressive political spectrum is rather outdated, carrying the musty scent of Cold War remnants. As when it comes to real individuals, politicians often exhibit remarkably intricate behavior against backdrop of different policies, environments, audiences, and time periods. The old political spectrum, much like the rigid party politics it represents, tends to be forcibly demarcated and ultimately proves rather ineffectual. By employing AI to dissect nearly a hundred of parameters, we have derived a new clustering political spectrum, and revealed some intriguing phenomena along the way:

The core echelon of Western political influence (as shown in the right-hand circle) is largely comprised of key figures within the current Democratic Party, including Joe Biden, Obama, Pelosi, and the Clintons. Coincidentally, the nucleus of this circle aligns precisely with representatives of central banking (Powell), financial titans (Larry Fink), and tech behemoths (Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, and Bill Gates). The coincidence reminds us of a classic Quora jest: "Why do meteors always land in craters?" The thing is that, wherein lies the nexus of dense corporate interests, there lies the center of power. As these vested interests rapidly rotate, a gravitational pull is generated, ensuring that politicians remain firmly within a stable orbit. In turn, these political figures diligently safeguard the interests of big corporates, perpetuating their welfare and prosperity.

However, the impact of this gravitational pull on the broader society and the general populace is quite paradoxical. Big corporate interests and political benefits do not equate to the citizens welfare and society benefits. At times, all four may progress in tandem, yet the tight alliance between the former two often leads to an expanded income gap and subsequent severe polarization. In the chart, two of the most viral political figures on social media, Trump and AOC, are at opposite ends of the political spectrum, one at the bottom, the other at the top. This is a sequel to the story of meteors always landing in craters, where their polarized political views reveal a truth about current American politics: as the center exerts its power to secure vested interests, the margins have to and will move towards extremes in a struggle for their share of benefits.

Moving down from the Western core to the left, one will find the non-Western core camp situated closely by. Contrary to some common stereotypes, the two cores are considerably close on the political spectrum of world history. Chinese President Xi and former Japanese Prime Minister Abe are only a stone's throw away, almost brushing against the edge of the Western core circle, and even closer than staunch Western allies like the Israel Prime Minister Netanyahu and new partners such as the Indian Prime Minister Modi. The President of Russia Putin and the Saudi Crown Prince MBS are relatively further away on the political spectrum, but so is Ukraine's president Zelenskyy. The scattered placement of these world leaders on the map does not show any clear division between allies and enemies in the traditional sense of so-called Western values, which is also why the traditional binary narratives of Western mainstream media seem increasingly pale.

Furthermore, we must not forget why a meteorite lies in a crater: today's large multinational corporations and global supply chains weave dense networks of interests around the world, with an increasingly homogenized elite class and countries having more in common within a globalized world. The gravity of interests once again highlights another universal value, pulling both Western leaders and those from non-Western camps alike.

When discussing the convergence of extreme political ideology, let’s rotate the screen and try a new analogy. The core group interests, soaring at high speed akin to dense matter traversing space, encounter the atmosphere of public will. As these interests rub against the atmospheric friction, the outer layers vaporize. The deeper they penetrate into the increasingly dense atmosphere, the frictional heat burns bright, igniting the dazzling tails of extreme liberalism—be it left-wing social liberalism, right-wing classical liberalism, or the new diversified liberalism. Sometimes these interests are eroded by public will, vanishing like meteors falling from the sky; in some cases, they manage a smooth landing on the ground of tough social reality. However, if these metaphorical meteors fail to compromise with societal realities and instead collide violently, the result is often a vast crater—seared by either extreme left or right ideologies—with profound and serious societal repercussions. Such impacts create chasms of ideological extremism and often lead to the depletion of both core group and societal interests.

Moreover, some interesting data points are worthnoting:

Confucius and President Lincoln appear in the lower left quadrant of the chart, arguably due to their historical context which lacks modern political dimensions, such as LGBT rights, nuclear weapon and environmental policies. Yet, this very corner associated with ancient ideas host popular modern figures like former President Trump and Internet KOL Andrew Tate. However, it is crucial to recognize that many expressed opinions are the result rather than the cause of interest fragmentation.

In terms of policy, there indeed exists a subtle demarcation between left and right. In the chart, all US politicians are positioned to the right of the white line, except President Roosevelt who steers firmly leftward. George Soros, a staunch advocate of Popper's "open society" and often categorized as a progressive liberal on the ideological spectrum, appears in this chart as an rather extreme version (mainly due to his politically subversive funding methods) of President Carter—whose neutral scoring in most parameters places him near the chart's center. Even Bernie Sanders, who waves the flag of revolution and democratic socialism, is positioned rightward in the spectrum, as in an electoral reality dominated by two parties that suppress leftist ideologies, any association with socialism implies a significant loss of votes, indirectly confirming the robust core of American capitalism. Nonetheless, the voice of the left in US has been growing with intensifying social conflicts especially among the younger generation, exemplified by AOC with her one leg crossing the central line.

Finally, the significant overlap between Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and Queen Victoria on the chart is of little coincidence. They share a common monarchical background, similar bold reform initiatives, an emphasis on economic development, and controversial reputations. One difference is that Queen Victoria's legacy has been well-established, whereas Saudi Arabia's future remains to be seen. It is worth noting that certain traits on the political spectrum transcend not only cultural boundaries but also time and space; narrow-minded ideologies, especially those entrenched in binary oppositions, should not serve as absolute measures.

This chart is not merely a newer version of political spectrum; it serves as a reminder, that in the grand theater of politics across countries and history, what defines a character is neither black-and-white ideologies nor their stance on specific issues, but what and whom they are drawn to in the vast cosmos of power and interests. For when a meteor always rests in its crater, only fools earnestly explain why.