My Political Compass
73
In the Hub I Thought I was a Republican by Paul Edmondson, livelonger posted a link to this online test, which is a nice (richer) indication than just left or right.
It only takes a couple of minutes and asks you to what degree you (dis)agree with a number of statements. It won't really help you in your selection of which candidate is right for you, but it may get you to think a little more on the various topics. For me it worked that way.
It will plot you on a scale that consists of two axes:
- Left - Right (or Communism - Neo-Liberalism)
- Libertarian - Authoritarian (or Anarchism - Fascism)
I'd like to share my views on a few areas, views that obviously influenced the choices I made.
Taxes
I strongly believe that the strongest shoulders should carry the heaviest burdens. In my view, the right wing thinks along the line of "survival of the fittest". Some may argue that this is a law of nature, so we are bound by that too. I disagree. First of all, it's a theorem, not a law. Second, and more importantly, we like to see ourselves as developed, civilized beings. Which in my view means that we should apply reason, rather than following ‘natural laws' instinctively. Since we also like to see ourselves as social beings, it's only logical that we take care of each other. "It's only natural" is not a valid argument. For cuckoos it's only natural to empty the nest of other birds and lay their eggs. Not only do they give up their offspring for abortion, they also get rid of any competition while they're at it. Could you see yourself walking over to the neighbors, smacking their baby against the wall and putting yours in the now empty cradle? Thought not.
Also, when you look at other social animals, living in herds for instance, you can also see that the strong bulls protect the herd, while the most vulnerable specimen are sheltered and taken care of by the rest of the herd.
Healthcare
If we require doctors to take the Hippocratic Oath, which specifically puts the patient's benefit first, how can we draw up a healthcare system that's only open for and available to those who can afford it?
"I will keep this Oath and this stipulation - to reckon him who taught me this Art equally dear to me as my parents, to share my substance with him, and relieve his necessities if required; to look upon his offspring in the same footing as my own brothers, and to teach them this art, if they shall wish to learn it, without fee or stipulation; and that by precept, lecture, and every other mode of instruction". Yet people needing HIV inhibitors the most have no access to them, because protectionistic measures such as patents made these drugs prohibitive.
Health is not an economic good. Health is vital. And denying people access to proper healthcare is basically the same as an attempt to murder. So healthcare should not be a marketplace. Yes, you want the medical practice to be effective and efficient. Yes, you do want to control the cost of it. But do we really want competition? I think not. Especially not when the competition is on profits.
Defense
Unfortunately national defense is a necessity. In this world a country can't do without. Hat we've seen in the past though (and this still goes on) is that ‘the enemy' is depicted as a diabolical threat against which we must arm ourselves to the teeth. In fact, offense is the best defense so we should be able to strike at any moment with immense force. We're looking at the result of this dogma today. Terrorism, war, bloodshed, uncountable innocent deaths. For 2008 the government of the United States enacted to spend $ 479.5 billion dollars on defense on a total budget of $ 941.4 billion. That's right. Of course, I'm not very good at interpreting budget and accountancy is not my thing, so I could well be wrong, but these figures are kind of scary, don't you think? It's a bit like spending $ 80,000.- on security systems and guard dogs on this house.
Education
Education is the key to a healthy and safe society. The only way we as a species can move on, learn and grow is if we teach our children to learn and think. The only way we can make sure that our children will be able to take care of themselves is if we teach them the skills that they need. So a good education should be available and open to any child, regardless of their race, sex, religion or their parent's income. And we should teach them as much as possible, we should present them with all knowledge and schools of thought, conflicting as they may be. So no school should deny the evolution theory, just as no school should deny the creationistic point of view.
Schools should be aimed at teaching children to their abilities and not according to some social class or background.
Your Political Compass
Are you
See results without voting
|
COLLECTABLE BRASS RESCUE FIREMAN COMPASS
Current Bid: $30.45
|
|
Mini Compass Key Ring For Outdoor Activity Hiking
Current Bid: $1.99
|
|
NEW Military Mens quartz watch compass thermometer RARE
Current Bid: $14.06
|
|
COLLECTABLE SOLID BRASS EMBOSSED BEATLE FINDER COMPASS
Current Bid: $34.80
|
|
Game Change: Obama and the Clintons, McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime
Price: $12.50
List Price: $27.99 |
|
What You Should Know About Politics...But Don't: A Nonpartisan Guide to the Issues
Price: $4.79
List Price: $16.95 |
|
Politics for Dummies
Price: $9.66
List Price: $19.99 |
|
Moral Politics : How Liberals and Conservatives Think
Price: $11.57
List Price: $22.00 |
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
Me too, Ananta, somewhere between Nelson Mandala and the dalai Lhama. I'm happy with that. I don't think I would have been thrilled if I'd been up there with George and our Gordon, but it would have been a bit of a shock!
Me too! A little farther left, but not much, same quadrant. That was fun. I guess it would have been less fun if I'd ended up next to Stalin or Hitler though. Thanks Ananta!
Ummm, I don't know who I am. Based on the test results I am slightly rightish slightly libertarianish - which probably makes me a pretty balanced person :P Who is Friedman anyway? :)
That's what I thought, CJ :)
I would have been quite surprised too if the outcome had been very much different, Amanda.
Don't thank me, Pam. It was livelonger who posted the link :)
You come across as pretty balanced, Misha :) But who Friedman is? Don't ask me, I'm a simple Dutch guy ;)
Very interesting hub..as usual. You sure you don't want to come to the States? We can always use as many independent free thinkers who aren't afraid to speak out as we can get.
Without being arrogant, they need me here, talented_ink *lol*
But seriously, as a matter of fact the situation in the Netherlands isn't very much better. We don't spend the huge amounts on defense (although these expenses are too high as well, as far as I'm concerned), but healthcare is a mess and the 9/11 virus has spread here too. Maybe I'll publish a part II covering other aspects. Besides, ideas and thoughts aren't aware of borders, are they?
Thanks for reading n commenting!
Not at all...the only thing that bugs me is that here, we have too many people who are swayed by big words, pretty colors, and empty promises rather than studious free thinkers. I look forward to your part 2.
I took this test three or four times and always came out with similar views to yours. Like I said, you're a Libertarian! So was Ghandi, so you're in good company.
Actually, you're more socially liberal by like...2 points...but considerably more economically conservative (about 6 points). That's odd, I sort of expected it the other way around!
I am socially more liberal, but fiscally more conservative, but I try to avoid being extreme on any issue. Sometimes I succeed! I guess I would find myself more or less dead center, which I guess is better than being dead in the center!
Believe me, talented_ink, it's an epidemic. Here too people fall for one liners and easy solutions (for some the Islam is to blame for everything). :(
You're right, t.keeley. I am quite conservative economically. I think you can only spend what you have and you can spend each dollar (or euro) only once, so you have to think carefully about what you're going to spend it on.
I think you're wise in that aim, Chef Jeff :) Wouldn't like to see you dead in the center.
I think the Freidman is Milton Freidman the free-market economist, famous as the brains behind Thatcherism and Reaganomics. I just wanted to add a few more names to our left-libertarian list: at a guess, Martin Luther King, John Lennon, Noam Chomsky. Who else do you imagine is on our side?
Actuaally yhat name came to mind indeed, I just couldn't 'place' it. So I guess you are right about Friedman.
I'd say Lao-Tse would be on our side too, CJ. His views on leadership indicate little authority and leading by example. Only step up if the situation requires this, no oppression.
Yay! I'm a lower-lefty too! :) Nice to be in such good company!
Good to have you with us, Spryte :)
I'm a lower lefty, although about three squares up and over to the left than you. I'm a little more authoritarian, and little more liberal, I guess. Still, good company.
Oh, and Milton Friedman was an extreme conservative economist.
I wouldn't be surprised if most people like a higher level of authority than I do, Dafla :)
Problem with economists (whether they are conservative or not) is that they often see economy as a goal in itself, rather than 'side-effect' of human interaction.
Interesting test - I'm so close to being in the middle between left and right and only two points down on the libertarian...... some of the questions did not supply an answer of my choice at all - so that could be something others experienced as well.
I believe that the strong should carry the weak however I do not believe it should have a darn thing to do with government. Why give the Gov money to waste - squander and create endless stacks of paper taking in 5 bucks and handing out 1 because of the top heavy system waste.
That is where the left and right both have it wrong in my mind...... when we give our money over to the government to in turn place it into the hands of the needy - far to much is wasted in the process and the cost on the strong will eventually make them weak too.
A book could be written in my reply but time wont allow it...LOL
Neil
I’ve had that with several questions too, Neil. With every test (unless they are exact), by the way. There’s always a ‘yes, but…’ or ‘no, but…’. But still, I do believe the outcome is quite accurate, all in all.
I am all for a small government, meaning as little overhead as possible. Here in the Netherlands there have been introduced so many rules and laws - often even conflicting with each other – and so many links in the process chain that indeed a lot of money is completely wasted. Health care here is completely ruined because of this. Don’t get me started :)
LOL - okay - I wont get you started - this hub reminds me why I hate political jokes so much..... there is simply too many of them in the worlds governments!
I like ‘m if I understand them. But quite often I don’t have enough knowledge about actuality to get them. There simple are too many politicians in the worlds of governments *lol*
I agree that strong financially should pay more, and we should take care of the weak, ill, and less fortunate. Many years ago, I asked my father this question, and I tend to vote for those who honor the thought behind it. I asked "Why should anyone have to pay if they're sick, or pay to be educated? Why can't it be available to all for a healthier society, a fair and balanced society?"
I still ask that today. Why is it considered correct and the thing to do, to provide foreign aide, to send our money to another country, but the dreaded word "socialism" if we spend our own money on ourselves for basic needs?
=)) good info, here and many points of agreement. I am liking your world view, for the most part.
I agree, Marisue. Today the Dutch government has bought the Dutch part of a Belgian/Dutch bank that had gotten into severe trouble. Many blame the credit crisis, but the fact of the matter is that it was mismanagement that caused it. We, the taxpayers, pay 17 billion euros to cover for the mistakes of a few executives whose egos were too big. And at the same time this government hesitates to spend a couple of millions on the problems in the healthcare sector. I don't mind spending money on foreign aid, although I do think we could do a lot better than simply send money. Like you I do object to the anti-social attitude when it comes to the domestic situation.
I was barely libertarian and barely left (-4, -2). Probably be closer to the authoritarian line, but some of the questions really trapped you into choosing black or white on some very gray stuff.
I know. I generally don't like these tests either. I think reality is too complex to capture in two, four or even 10 possibilities. There's always a "but.." or an "unless". However, at the end of the day I did feel that the outcome for me is pretty close to my own perception of my political standpoint. Did you expect a different outcome, Shadesbreath?
Nah, other than the dip into the libertarian side. I was suprised to see me fall beneath the line. I think there has to be order for civilization to thrive. Not a lot, but somone has to make decisions. I'm not comfortable with the idea that I would lean closer to anarchy than authority. I don't believe that reflects me very well, and I blame it on a couple of the questions that imposed adverbs or adjectives that skew the answers, forcing a choice between heart and mind that does not have to exist.
A couple of the weak questions to my mind were:
"There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures."
Which, I understand what they're probably attempting to ask, but the omission of "savage" and "civilized" as adjectives to describe cultures while having used them for "people" skews answers. For me, it seemed like I had to either pick between two beliefs I hold: A) being that I don't believe in original sin or that one "race" is savage or not savage by virtue of simply being that race, and B) being my belief that cultures can be savage if that is what a culture comes to value (there have been many examples in history). That question forced me to the bottom half of the spectrum, because I value my belief that all people are naturally good more than I value my understanding of how culture functions. Bad question.
And another particularly bad adverbial choice was in this one:
"What's good for the most successful corporations is always, ultimately, good for all of us."
By using "always" there they remove reality from the picture and impose a false binary of good or bad on something that is far more complicated than that. That's probably the most poorly constructed question in the whole thing, forcing us to either take a stance for or against corporations based on us having decided that "most successful corporations" are all evil or all good, all detrimental or all useful to society, or that all things that benefit a company will translate to "good" for "all" of "us." Since they are neither "good" nor "bad" collectively, and since all beneficial possibilities for "most" of them don't necessarily translate to "us", the question is flawed and skews answers unnecessarily.
Call me Nelson Mandela! Seriously, Ananta65, very informative hub and fun quiz. Even if I didn't happen to agree with your views, I would find your points well argued. This exercise is also a good refresher on often bandied-about terms --- and their opposites.
I can see you point, Shadesbreath. And I think that these questions try to reveal out tendencies in the issues related to those topics. Which interest would we have prevail in case of conflicts? If less strict legislation regarding the environment or child labor allows those large corporations to grow, what side would we choose? I agree that those questions could be phrased a lot better than they have been.
As far as authority is concerned, feel differently. It’s not that someone has to make decisions. But decisions have to be made. In a real democracy decision making is ‘simply’ a matter of voting. IN tribal communities it’s most often a matter of the older and wiser member of that community that take decisions. In fact, it all comes down to rethoric :) He who presents his proposals best gets the ideas across (he can of course also be a she).
Thank you Mighty Mom,
I thought it was fun to do also. Think about those issues without candidates in mind, but only your personal views. If you have drawn up your own political map, it’s easier to come to a rational decision on who will get your vote.
Yeah, tribal communities (or ones where most people don't read and take their beliefs from television or other nearly monopolized media forms) rhetoric informs democracy. The whole early debate about how our government would be set up hinged on that stuff... would a populace ever be informed enough for their vote to be a "good decision" or just one that was "persuaded" by the rhetorician clever enough to represent them?
Good point, but would some authority (a president, for example) ever be informed AND wise enough to come to the good decision?
The ‘problem’ I have with authority is that governments are trying to control and prescribe how we should live our lives. I feel that by far the most people will be perfectly able to sort things out for themselves and make their own sensible choices. Authority should – in my view – not so much take decisions, but rather resolve conflicts of interest. We need some layer of escalation when the two of us can’t come to an agreement. We don’t need this layer to tell us in advance how we should look at things.
Interesting test. I didn't feel comfortable with all questions because I would have liked to say "neutral" to some However, I suppose that a person needs to take a stand to function in society.
At any rate, I felt rather lonely when all the governmemnt policies are somewhere else on the chart, but I finally found that the Finnish government policies are about where I am. Hmmm - wonder how cold it is in Finland? Probably a lot different from what I'm used to!
The idea is indeed that they want to 'force' people tp take a stand, rather than avoiding to 'chiken out' by answering 'neutral', so I've read.
I cam't remember it becoming a toplogical compass as well, budwood :)
Milton Friedman was a self-proclaimed libertarian economist
CJStone says:
17 months ago
Yes, left libertarian too. Same quarter as Ghandi. As you say, good company.