Political Compass
Nov 1st, 2009 | 98 responses
It’s been a little while since we’ve tried this
One of the hardest things is to determine your own political position because it is only natural to assume you are the mainstream/center and everyone else should be left or right of you.
There are a number of political surveys out there, and they too have some bias, but this one is pretty good at offering evaluation, and if anything it gives us an idea of how we stand compared to each other.
In this survey the higher the positive number the further to the right you are, the higher the negative number denotes how far you are to the left.
A note of caution, many of the questions on the survey are such that you could have a couple answers that fit your views and others don’t have any perfect match. In past occassions of taking the test I’ve ended up as high as 3 or 4 on the economic scale and as low as -1. On the Social scale I’ve ended up as high as 2 or 3 and as low as -2 or -3.
It all depends on how you interpret certain questions (IE what does ‘regulating a company on the environment’. Does it mean reasonable rules or does it mean government takeover.
Try taking it and letting us know how you do.
Just to start the ball rolling.
Economic Left/Right: 0.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.21
This is a pretty representative score for myself.
98 Responses to “Political Compass”
Economic Left/Right: 0.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.10
Hmph. As DaGoat noted, this is a lonely quadrant to occupy.
“Well, yes…but the individual numbers are not so meaningful by themselves, what is more important is how those numbers are in *relation* to others.”
I agree. I was half-joking in anticipation of what I thought would be many people trying to find problems with the questions (turned out there's not much of that). But even when trying to use these numbers to compare one person to another, I still think we need to be careful. In some cases the interpretation of the question affects how you answer, and it's likely that the same question is interpreted in different ways by two different people. I especially dislike questions with words like “never” in them because I can almost always find an exception to the rule that makes me have to answer contrary to what I would like to.
In any case, I'm not trying to over-analyze the test. It is interesting, I just don't think we should take it too far to compare two people.
1) Libertarian Party 93%
2) Constitution Party 86%
3) Republican Party 57%
The site though admits to the purpose of raising the profile of 3rd parties. Not that I think that's a bad thing, but it does raise questions about the test's objectivity.
Economic Left/Right: -6.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.41
Make of it what you will. Of course my reasoning for some of my economic views is a bit different from most, I think.
The party matching is somewhat amusing, and I'm just a tad skeptical.
1) Libertarian Party 100%
2) Constitution Party 70%
3) Republican Party 60%
Everything else came in 50% or lower.
I do find this exercise interesting in one regard, though. The people with whom my results seem to most closely align are those with whom I most often agree here on TMV.
Economic Left/Right: 3.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.90
Well, since it is now out in readable numbers, let's at least not suggest this is predominately a moderate centrist blog.
Just took the test. Results:
Economic Left/Right: -7.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.21
I have to confess I'm not good at parsing charts and graphics, so I'm not sure exactly what this means in terms of this particular test's criteria. I already know I'm very liberal and not at all authoritarian, so I'm assuming that's what it shows.
Perhaps you're right, CO. It should be renamed the “Modestly Libertarian Voice” given that all but one of the respondents so far fall on the libertarian side of the libertarian v. authoritarian social scale. I choose “Modestly ” Libertarian because only two of the above come out more than 5 to the libertarian side.
Or, we could rename it the Schizophrenic Voice given the modestly left economic leanings of the majority above, juxtaposed against the above-mentioned modestly libertarian bias on the social scale.
Maybe we should just leave it The Moderate Voice. Just so you'll always have something to harp on…he said with a wry smile on his face.
Edit: Three commenters over 5 on the libertarian side of the social scale. Kathy posted her comment as I was struggling to find the correct key strokes.
I agree with that last, definitely. I chose “Disagree” for that one, because I do think that *sometimes* it's good to distract yourself, but the difficulty many people have with emotion is a problem, in my view.
A few of the questions were rather bizarre and unrelated to any ideology. I'm more interested in the etiology of some of these tests than the test results themselves. I think this one wasn't terribly balanced, although I've seen worse.
Not really surprising. I am very libertarian on economics and conservative and authoritarian on most social issues.
Economic Left/Right: 5.62
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.64
On the party scale, I came in at
1) Constitution Party – 75%
2) Libertarian Party – 67%
3) Republican Party – 63%
All the rest came in at less than 35%. Again, this is unsurprising.
I just saw the link to the Party Compatibility Test.
1) Green Party 92%
2) Democratic Party 71%
3) Natural Law Party 71%
4) Reform Party 67%
5) Libertarian Party 33%
6) Constitution Party 29%
7) Republican Party 25%
I was surprised the results were so accurate for me, because I thought the design of the questions was very shallow. It's not always clear what “regulation” means in every context.
You are Communist?
Party Compatibility Test.
1) Libertarian Party 87%
2) Constitution Party 57%
3) Republican Party 52%
4) Reform Party 43%
5) Green Party 35%
6) Democratic Party 30%
7) Natural Law Party 13%
CO – interesting that your numbers are the closest to mine – fairly right on economic issues, much more libertarian socially.
I am curious what you would get on the party affiliation link JD provided.
I'm not good at parsing charts and graphics, so I'm not sure exactly what this means in terms of this particular test's criteria.
It means according to this test you are an Anarchist-Communist!
Communism is even more foolish than libertarianism. I try to think outside of simplistic labels. I also recognize that we are heading towards problems that won't be solved by people who let themselves be trapped in those simplistic concepts. Conservatives, by their nature, don't have a clue when it comes to solutions to modern problems because they insist that 18th century solutions should work just fine for everything.
Economic: 1.62
Social: -3.13
Libertarian: 95%
Constitution: 77%
Reform 55%
I'm happy to report that the major parties didn't show up in the top 3. I also had problems with some questions, but in the end, I showed up more moderate than I thought.
It means according to this test you are an Anarchist-Communist!
That must mean I'm nothing, because those two sides would cancel each other out.
I agree. Not quite sure what an example of a true anarchist-communist would be, if it is even a valid combination.
Someone who wants a collective that promotes disorder and chaos?
I'm not sure, either, but it seems like the more accurate companion to anarchist would be libertarian. Libertarian is a very broad category, but in general don't libertarians want less government? And anarchists want no government?
Well, there is a HUGE difference between wanting less government, but accepting that government has a true and legitimate role (Libertarians), and Anarchists. There is a HUGE difference in general between Libertarians and Anarchists, and they really have little to nothing in common.
Libertarians believe, as a whole, in self-determination and empowerment of the individual against the state; Anarchists in disorder and violence:
lib?er?tar?i?an [lib-er-tair-ee-uhn]
–noun
1. a person who advocates liberty, esp. with regard to thought or conduct.
2. a person who maintains the doctrine of free will (distinguished from necessitarian).
3. one who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state.
4. advocating liberty or conforming to principles of liberty.
5. maintaining the doctrine of free will.
an?ar?chist [an-er-kist]:
–noun
1. a person who advocates or believes in anarchy or anarchism.
2. a person who seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed.
3. a person who promotes disorder or excites revolt against any established rule, law, or custom.
Did ya notice that most of the moderate or conservative voices are Libertarian/Constitution party matches and most of the liberal voices are Green/Democrat party matches?
I personally find that number disturbing.
With these numbers, why do we find it so difficult collectively to pull the lever for anyone other than a Democrat or Republican? I'm convinced that the two parties have entrenched themselves in a system that guarantees their survival.
I'm pretty sure the last election was the very last time I will do so.
Hey Kat and Austin….
Wouldn't a true “anarchist-communist” be a Hippy Commune?
Jim,
The 18th century solutions you alluded to are the framework for solutions – not the solutions themselves. The founding fathers new political science and philosphy very very well. They know the general tendancies of governments, and that of unchecked power. That's why they attempted to put the power with the people – the first time in history for such an endeavor. And against their warnings, portions of our government turned away from the Constitution year after year, and hoarded for themselves a bit more power and money. That's the general tendancy of government when the Constitution is NOT followed.
18th Century framework – the PEOPLE should provide the solutions not the government. Just let the government be the referee.
Well, I was someone who looked at the questions and balked. At least on the party affiliation one. Would I increase, maintain, or decrease regulation to what purpose? What's the goal? What sort of regulation in particular? So I left it.
I've done the compass one before and like many here, I come out as fairly left on social issues and middle of the road to the economic stuff.
Because we don't have a proportional system, If I vote for the Green Candidate, it's very likely that all that I will do is undermine the Democratic Candidate and get the Republican elected, (See Bush v Gore 2000) and all things being equal I would rather see a Conservative Democrat with whom I am agreement 50% of the time get elected than Liberal Republican (an oxymoron if there has ever been one) with whom I am agreement 80% of the time since the Republican is pretty much guaranteed to vote the Party line 90+% of the time once he/she gets to DC.
A few impressions.
1. The party compatibility test seemed deeply flawed. My top two, in nearly a dead heat at about 80%, were Libertarian and Green, which I regard as diametrically opposed phiosophically.
2. Many of our self professed “libertarians” were very laizzez faire economically, but not strongly libertarian socially.
3. Many of our self professed “liberals” came out strongly liberal on economic issues, but were a mix on the social scale in terms of how libertarian they tended.
Not fully agreed, my double negative scoring friend.
The liberties questions posed can't discern a libertarian from a liberal because it did not link in the economic side into the same issue. There is no individual right on earth I would not grant to you…..abortion, pot smoking, joining the single payer Pelosi health plan…….just don't let any of it have any effect on my rights or my funds.
And what really is the logical demarcation between “agreeing” and “strongly agreeing”? I'm not prone to emotional histrionics, so it seems to me “agreeing” gets the job done.
CO -
I agree that the test was flawed; both of them were. Not only because of the “strongly” category, but also because there was no “I don't give a damn” option, which I for one would have hit on a few, simply because I could see agreeing in some instances but not in others. I found myself constantly wanting to ask “Could you please rephrase the question?” In the end, these tests didn't prove much, but were fun exercises. That's all they were.
I remember back when Patrick addressed this topic back in July 2008 under a post titled Test Your Ideology. I haven't taken the test since that time, but I suspect that my current score would be similar to what it was then, given that my political beliefs have not really changed all that much in the last 16 months.
As I mentioned in thecomments section to that post, there are some noteable flaws with Politcal Compass:
Anyone familiar with Gartner's magic quadrant graphs knows the northeast is the one to be in. And most folks here are in the southwest. I came out about where I figured, (1.88, -4.10).
But I disagree with the test's vertical axis naming. I'd rate most progressives quite high on authoritarianism, just not in service to social issues.
Of course, AR. I only meant that it would be more logical to liken libertarians to anarchists (in the sense that anarchists take libertarianism to the farthest possible extreme) than it is to compare anarchists to communists, who are opposites, and thus on two completely different scales.
I know. It was just refreshing to have a civilized discussion, and I was just making talk.
I may think you are socialist with almost communist leaning (and I do mean that not in a mean or insulting way, but in what seems to be your economic leanings, in a pure sense, not a Stalin/Mao sort of way), but I don't think you are an anarchist.
You think are a nice lady (who loves animals), with whom I have have strong disagreements on what would best help our country and Americans in the next 5 – 20 years. And who isn't afreaid to mix it up, either!
The type of anarchism they are speaking of seems to be the Emma Goldman variety which is basically a Socialist/Libertarian or Left wing Libertarian stance. Its a small segment of the population but it exists, I am one of them though I dont really vote that way mostly because it only works well in rural settings but it is also the same system that Chomsky and others like him ascribe to. The best way I can think of to describe it is anti-authoritarian socialism or to just use this Emma Goldman quote that was part of the test “from each according to his ability and to each according to their needs.” It is not the classic anarchisim of history but what I call the neo-anarchisim of the 20's/30's that was pretty popular in the 90's counter culture. I know a little on the topic, I have it tattooed on my wrist as a reminder in fact.
MSF – that is not a Emma Goldman quote. That is from Karl Marx in his “Critique of the Gotha Program:
I freely own the socialist leanings — although democratic socialist, as in Western European countries. Communist, no — at least not in my understanding of Communism or Marxism. Soviet-style Communism, iow. That is not what I believe.
Basically, I believe in a mixed economy (public/private), which the U.S. is, but to a much lesser extent than most of the other mixed economies in the world. On social issues such as abortion for example I think I'm actually more of a libertarian than a lot of people who call themselves libertarian.
P.S. And thanks for the kind words!
By the way, AR, you might be interested to know that I chose “Disagree” as a reply to that question in the test.
LOL Thanks AR, that quote is commonly attributed to Goldman and now I know where she got it. I still think quoting Adam Smith is a much better way to fight capitalism's abuses than quoting Marx but quoting Marx is a wonderful way to fight socialism's abuses. Goldman is interesting in my opinion only in her ability to provoke populist fervor and quoting Marx just makes it a bit to easy so now I am even less impressed with her, I will stick with my Chomsky it makes life much more depressing
.
I'm on the right-hand side of the libertarian quadrant in the quiz2 test, but no bleeding into the conservative quadrant whatsoever…….must have been my selection on the porn question..lol!
“With these numbers, why do we find it so difficult collectively to pull the lever for anyone other than a Democrat or Republican?”
Like I said, I’m a little suspect of the questionnaire since its run by people promoting third parties. Still, I agree that we ought to vote for the person we think is best able to do the job, regardless of political affiliation. Some people say that is throwing your vote away, but I disagree. I believe the 2-party system is the equilibrium point in our political system, but that doesn’t mean third parties don’t play a role in shaping those 2 parties. We should not measure the success of a third party only by whether they win elections. More here: http://sovereignmind.wordpress.com/2008/10/10/t…
In 2008 I found myself disgusted with both campaigns and so considered voting for a third party. But Barr was too libertarian for my taste, and as I looked at the other parties I didn’t see anyone that seemed to have the basic qualifications (I’m not just voting for an ideology, but also a person of course). So in the end I held my nose and stuck with the major parties. On the other hand, it’s hard to have qualified candidates until you start winning more local elections, and and the more local the election the more probability there is to be a qualified candidate in a third party. So my principle is simple: vote for the person who would be the best in office. If everyone did that, over time that would result in more local officials who are from third parties, which would result in more qualified candidates for higher office, which would result in more pressure on the 2 major parties to adopt some of the principles of the 3rd party, which as I argue in the link above is the main purpose of minor parties.
According to quiz2d, I am well within the centrist circle, slightly leaning toward libertarian/conservative. So, similar results as the political compass. I don't know if that makes me nuanced and interesting or ignorant and boring (according to many news reports towards the end of the last election cycle it was the latter. I was undecided up until about a week before the election and was frequently told I was uninformed for not picking a side, as if all one needs to do to make the obvious choice is the listen to the candidates' and parties' drivel.)
Actually, JD, the 18th century solutions I refer to are those of the conservative's bastardized version of Adam Smith's writings and the beliefs of David Ricardo. The modern conservative acts as though all of the changes the world has gone through cannot change those economist's theories no matter how much it changes the environment economics operate in. What does comparative advantage mean when production and labor, whether that of manufacturing or many services can be moved anywhere in the world? Why does the writing of Adam Smith that praises laissez faire seem to be the only part that conservatives listen to while ignoring his warnings about how it can go wrong? Constitutionalism seems to go hand in hand with worship of the free market and refusal to recognize its flaws and the place that government is going to have to have unless we choose to ignore the fact that private charity no longer has the resources to ameliorate suffering caused by massive economic dislocations inherent in unfettered capitalism.
“For one thing, many of the questions asked have nothing to do whatsoever with politics.”
Which is probably it's biggest flaw. I consider myself to be a personal conservative, but politically more libertarian, which means that there are a lot of things that I consider wrong and harmful to both people and the society as a whole, but I don't believe that they can be usefully addressed by a government. It's an idea that seems to confuse many people, especially in abortion statistics, where a majority are against abortions, but also against it being illegal.
I just can't look at the government as a genie, or as a god, while seeing the real effects of its (usually) well-intentioned laws.
Wow someone remembers something I wrote over a year ago ?
Oh, okay. I didn't realize you were talking economics. I get your point now.
IMHO….. Supply side AND Demand side economics both are unrealistic.
And I absolutely stand against “unfettered” capitalism. Regulation is needed as long as greed exists. Case in point: Railroads, coal companies, sweat shops, in the 19th and 20th centuries.
Hey! The quiz2d result had me where I “thought” I'd be with the other quiz.
“Right-leaning Freedom Lover”
But it still had me close to centrist, only above it to the upper right.
No shock there.