The Political Compass.

[green-man-2010.livejournal.com]

We recently had a test which showed us ( in the words of those who published the results) that "Self proclaimed Liberals/ leftists were ignorant of economic theory.

And that, i think, is the problem. "Self proclaimed" anybodies should not be taken too seriously till they show some sort of credentials.

And of course, the other thing is that Copnsevative types are depicted as 'smart'. As if money were everything , or could sort everything out.

The fact is that one can be socially consevative and still believe in economic liberalism. Or believe in strict monetarist policies but still find time to smoke pot, use porn and and be outrageously gay!

So, where do we, where do you stand on the political compass? Dare you take the test and find out?

For the record , I am in the same quadrant as Ghandi, Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama. You?

http://www.politicalcompass.org/index

there are no right and wrong answers - it's about what you truly believe. Go read the homepage and the into stuff firs and you will see what it's about.

But, the point is that it's not just left/ right. There are two axes that generate 4 basic political positions. which one is yours?

Comments

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

You are acting as if right and left only occupy single a single axis.

This isn't a first grade math lesson -- this is the complex play of political affiliation and philosophy that are poorly served by the word "spectrum".

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

You are acting as if right and left only occupy single a single axis.

That's exactly what I'm stating. This four cornered nonsense is designed to make people feel better about their positions and, more importantly, to make libertarians believe they're not subscribing to either side.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

Well, that's nonsensical.

Easy, and readily explains why you argue like a walking talking No True Scotsman Fallacy about the reality of political affiliation, but nonsensical.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

How is it nonsensical, exactly?

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

Ignores the fact that in Western Democracy, left wing political parties stake out positions that call for less intrusive government on a range of issues such as drug legalization, privacy, law enforcement, the extent of the military and so on while right wing political parties call for more intrusive government on many of those same issues.

Your willing of a single litmus test doesn't change that. By your definition, we haven't had a right wing administration since Buchanan and Guiliani's stop and frisk drug arrest policies were left wing.

Oversimplification is as much of a vice as obsfucation.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Ignores the fact that in Western Democracy, left wing political parties stake out positions that call for less intrusive government on a range of issues such as drug legalization, privacy, law enforcement, the extent of the military and so on while right wing political parties call for more intrusive government on many of those same issues.

I'm not ignoring that. In fact, I have explicitly stated as such (http://community.livejournal.com/talk_politics/579172.html?thread=42131812#t42131812). I know you have fun trying to knock me down a peg, but be a little more attentive, at least.

Your willing of a single litmus test doesn't change that. By your definition, we haven't had a right wing administration since Buchanan and Guiliani's stop and frisk drug arrest policies were left wing.

You're being much more extreme about it, but no, we've had center right Presidents in Clinton and in Reagan and that's roughly it in modern times.

And of course Giuliani's stop-and-frisk was a left wing idea. You do realize that he's one of the least right wing Republicans to gain national prominence in quite some time, right?

Well, now that I think about it, maybe you don't realize it.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

I know you have fun trying to knock me down a peg, but be a little more attentive, at least.


I saw it, but you still hold onto this fringe definition like it can substitute for reality.

You're being much more extreme about it, but no, we've had center right Presidents in Clinton and in Reagan and that's roughly it in modern times.

Not by your definition, no way.

You do realize that he's one of the least right wing Republicans to gain national prominence in quite some time, right?


Not by your definition -- he's pro-gay and largely silent on abortion.

But I rather expect you to not consider the long history of right wing fondness of enhanced police powers and security issues and try to lay that as a left wing issue.

You're way off the reservation and it makes you constant insistance on your own definitions in these debates even more problematic.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I saw it, but you still hold onto this fringe definition like it can substitute for reality.

I'll note that you haven't done much to disabuse me of the notion.

Not by your definition -- he's pro-gay and largely silent on abortion.

You haven't grasped my definition, then.

But I rather expect you to not consider the long history of right wing fondness of enhanced police powers and security issues and try to lay that as a left wing issue.

Well, you're absolutely right. It's a favoring of state power over the individuals, which is a traditionally left wing thing.

Like I said - I have no expectation of getting my way on this. All I'm saying is that we've compartmentalized ideological issues in a way that make no sense in the context of the belief systems they purport to inhabit.

You're way off the reservation and it makes you constant insistance on your own definitions in these debates even more problematic.

Not that I've actually done that. While I'd like to see us use more precise and coherent definitions, I'm by no means trying to shoehorn those concepts in when I'm discussing issues or politicians.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

Well, you're absolutely right. It's a favoring of state power over the individuals, which is a traditionally left wing thing.


Except, of course, the myriad of examples where it was right ring that you paper over with your fondness for True Scotsmen.

While I'd like to see us use more precise and coherent definitions

You're mistaking simplistic with precise.

Oh, and:

I'm by no means trying to shoehorn those concepts in when I'm discussing issues or politicians.


Hogwash, Jeff -- you've done it for at least since mid-way through the Bush administration.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Except, of course, the myriad of examples where it was right ring that you paper over with your fondness for True Scotsmen.

Surely you must have a few in mind.

Hogwash, Jeff -- you've done it for at least since mid-way through the Bush administration.

That's because, by popular metrics, Bush was a centrist President. I'm not even using my own definitions on the matter, it's just basic analysis.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

As I thought.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

I already told you areas were right wingers espouse more and more intrusive government.

I can't help your blinkers that demand it be a left wing position even when it is the trademark of right wing politics.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

They're not blinkers. What I'm telling you is that considering those positions as being "right wing" doesn't make sense in the left/right paradigm. It's nonsensical.

To put it on point, REGARDLESS of where some right wingers may espouse more and more intrusive government, that doesn't necessarily mean that it's a right wing position. There's a difference between the more government that a Tom DeLay or Paul Ryan may espouse and the more government a George W Bush or John McCain might espouse. Certainly you grasp that, right?

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

I can grasp that you've conveniently made it a construct in your head so that you never ever have to consider that right wing politics ever contain or espouse anything that you consider negative.

So yes, I grasp that you are entirely self-serving in this.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I can grasp that you've conveniently made it a construct in your head so that you never ever have to consider that right wing politics ever contain or espouse anything that you consider negative.

Well, that's just incorrect. By the metric that makes sense, it would place anarchy in TEH BEST SPOT EVER. I certainly don't buy that. I could keep going, but I don't think you actually care.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

I'll just file this all under "More Reasons Why Jeff Always Insisting He Lives in Reality is Insanely Funny".

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Good show, sir. Enlightening as usual.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

You want enlightenment? Here's enlightenment:

This is entirely about you trying to paper over your own cognitive dissonance. It goes like this:

Jeff considers himself right wing.

But the right wing of western politics embraces social conservatism, law and order, and an expanded, permanent military complex. And it has done so for at least the past 50 years.

So because you are not exactly comfortable with the expansion of the state that these positions entail, you have conveniently dismissed that both left and right wing politics involve areas of libertarian and authoritarian stances and ascribe only the left with authoritarian and the right with libertarian stances.

And with a wave of your hand, you've relabeled almost half of what right wing American politics has embraced for decades.

Reagan's permanent war time military budgets? LEFT WING!

Scalia's consistent rulings in favor of more and more police power to search? LEFT WING!

Pat Robertson's social conservatism and Rhenquist's ruling in "Bowers v. Hardwick"? LEFT WING!

J. Edgar Hoover's spying on anti-war activists? LEFT WING!

The entire drug war? LEFT WING!

Glad it helps you sleep at night, but it isn't reality.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Glad it helps you sleep at night, but it isn't reality.

What's funny is you lecturing me on reality while just assuming where I'd place those issues in a theoretical scale. You've made yourself look mighty foolish there, not to mention that you ignored my explanation above to confirm your own biases.

Whatever - you're gonna do what you're gonna do, so have a ball.

[weswilson]

It also makes sense that Christians would love their neighbors as themselves, but the reality is different than the ideal. Your ruler of measure is noted, but is not reflective of what almost anyone else would define as left/right, conservative/liberal. The truth is that both sides of the political spectrum see government as a means to accomplish some of their goals, and lack of government as a means to accomplish others. Even libertarians would argue in favor of increased government if the ability to sustain meaningful trade diminished from natural monopoly or an oligarchical market developed.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

Your ruler of measure is noted, but is not reflective of what almost anyone else would define as left/right, conservative/liberal.

Correct, thus my knowledge that changing the way we view it is not a battle I'd win. That's apparently too subtle a view for some to come to.

[malasadas.livejournal.com]

Would that you actually argued with that acknowledgement -- but it is obvious that you constantly substitute reality with your personal metric and call it "reality". Very little of what you insist is true makes sense without taking into account how far out in the field you are on this definition.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

That's, of course, blatantly false, but you've already made your decision and aren't moving.

[weswilson]

But it's the exact opposite of subtle. You measure has no subtlety to it at all. Where does enforcement of contract law come in? How about national defense? Combating fraudulent currency? There are places where more government intrusion actually helps create more individual liberty. Your measure is an overly simplistic way to present a very complex situation.