A few thoughts on left, right, and center.

[crispini]

There's been an awful lot of tossing around of these terms on DU lately. I think these terms are worthy of some discussion in and of themselves. I'd like to point DU'ers to the wonderful website, The Political Compass, which recommends a rethinking of the whole left-right spectrum, which they posit as strictly "economic" in nature, and they add an additional "up and down" axis of a more "social" nature, which is Libertarian - Authoritarian. From the website:

On the standard left-right scale, how do you distinguish leftists like Stalin and Gandhi? It's not sufficient to say that Stalin was simply more left than Gandhi. There are fundamental political differences between them that the old categories on their own can't explain. Similarly, we generally describe social reactionaries as 'right-wingers', yet that leaves left-wing reactionaries like Robert Mugabe and Pol Pot off the hook.

That's about as much as we should tell you for now. After you've responded to the following propositions during the next 3-5 minutes, all will be explained. In each instance, you're asked to choose the response that best describes your feeling: Strongly Disagree, Disagree, Agree or Strongly Agree. At the end of the test, you'll be given the compass, with your own special position on it.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/index

I'd like to encourage all of you to take the test -- you'll find the results very informative. I'd also like to direct your attention to the page for the US Presidential Election 2008, which notes:

When examining the chart it's important to note that although most of the candidates seem quite different, in substance they occupy a relatively restricted area within the universal political spectrum. Democracies with a system of proportional representation give expression to a wider range of political views. While Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader are depicted on the extreme left in an American context, they would simply be mainstream social democrats within the wider political landscape of Europe. Similarly, Obama is popularly perceived as a leftist in the United States while elsewhere in the west his record is that of a moderate conservative. (more at link)

http://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2008

Here are the charts from the Presidential Election on that page (general and primary):





And, for reference, here is my personal chart:



When I first took the test, my results certainly surprised me, and it also surprised the friends I encouraged to take it. I'd like to encourage each of you to take the test yourselves, and post your chart here, or just post the numbers that it gives you if that's too much work. I couldn't find any easy way to post my chart, so I just took a screenshot and uploaded it to my photobucket.

I hope this is food for thought and discussion! :hi:

[cyclezealot]

1. No such thing as center, only how sold out to corporate is the real score..

It's reason to boast... How deep into the green quadrant a voter finds themself.. Wow. I have a less than center position than Dennis Kucinich.. Wake up DK.. Nader is the only one we really can trust..

[Danger Mouse]

3. Don't be ridiculous.

[cali]

7. lol. I love posters who are parodies.

:rofl:

[Danger Mouse]

8. You are far too kind.

:banghead:

[Danger Mouse]

2. I did that once. I'm pretty far into left/libertarian.

[crispini]

4. Surprised the hell out of me, myself.

It also really shocked the friend I mentioned it to. He actually came out a little more left than me!

[Danger Mouse]

5. Why'd it surprise you, if I may ask?

I was expecting I'd come out more left/libertarian than most politicians. Politicians typically have to adopt positions they might not agree with in order to succeed politically. We don't have that liability. I'm assuming that the compass goes by what politicians state as their beliefs and their voting records.

[crispini]

9. I always thought of myself as a fairly moderate person.

I had no idea I was such a flaming leftie. :D

[Danger Mouse]

10. You're a DU'er. That practically makes you a commie.

:P
Have a happy Thanksgiving. :hug:

[crispini]

11. Indeed!

You too! :hug::hi:

[FKA MNChimpH8R]

36. Same here

An economic Euro-style Social Democrat and a civil liberties libertarian.

[Starry Messenger]

6. My chart:

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-4.38&soc=-5.64

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -4.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.64


There were a few questions I had to agree or disagree on that I would ordinarily vote "neutral" on, so I don't know how that skewed my result.

[Two Americas]

12. thoughts

The upper right hand corner represents "power" so of course all political leaders will fall into that quadrant. That does not mean that we should, since we are not in power.

The lower left hand corner represents the "middle" for the working people. The degree to which people are successful and powerful, or identify with the wealthy and powerful, their thinking moves toward the upper right.

The "ideology" follows the person's circumstances and relative degree of power and status.

[crispini]

15. Interesting.

I kind of see where you're going with that, but I'm not sure how you got there, connected with the questions on the test and so on. Could you explain a little more?

[Two Americas]

18. have given it a lot of thought

Historically, politics was always about economics and power. In recent times here in this country, right wing propagandists have successfully changed the definition of politics by creating their "culture war" nonsense as the context for politics. Politics then became a matter of "personal values" and "personal choices" - individualism and libertarianism - and liberalism has been in a reaction stance to that.

The chart tracks the relatively successful people, those with the luxury of fine-tuning their positions, and the activist community and DU are dominated by those who are relatively successful and this affects their political thinking more than anything else.

Outside of the activist community and those who are more politically knowledgeable, and care about that, you can here very leftists statements from the every day people on matters of power and economics, regardless of their positions on the culture war issues. "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer" and "rich man's war, poor man's fight" for example. I work in a blue collar field, in supposed very conservative Republican voting areas, and what I heard continually leading up to the election was "we need another New Deal" - much farther to the Left than the party insiders, pundits and activists.

We - the activists and political commentators - ignore most of the people without realizing that we do, and we identify with the rulers without realizing we do. This is betrayed by how people use the word "we" and also by how they use the word "America."

When activists say "America" they mean "the ruling class." But most of the everyday people, when they say "America" mean their family, friends and neighbors - the everyday people in America. "America is evil" to the activists, means "the ruling class is evil." The everyday people hear that as "they are saying that my family, friends and neighbors are evil." The activists will say "we" did such and such when the ruling class does something, the everyday people say "they" did such and such.

The upper right represents those with access to power and resources, and the attitudes are those of the "winners" - the haves - and the authoritarians - the bossy, bullying, domineering and controlling ones.

This chart has been discussed here many times over the years. TahitiNut compiled a comprehensive analysis of the membership here that showed that almost all of us are in the lower left hand quadrant. Yet the discussion here, and the various liberal organizations and the Democratic party is dominated by ideas and attitudes from the upper right hand corner. We are under continual and intense pressure to move to the right, or to compromise with and embrace ideas from the right. The few can dominate the many, because there are built in advantages to siding with power - being "winners" and ridiculing others as "losers" - and because those with access to more resources argue for the status quo, and the status quo favors their interests. They do not need to promote ideas, they need merely to obstruct and block the ideas of others, and so confuse and distract people and prevent change. Those who are relatively better off, and who are authoritarian, can dominate and control the discussion, and that is how the few control the many.

[bread_and_roses]

23. Excellent

I also think, scanning through replies, that some here have not yet become aware that "left" as used by the media, politicians, and many on this site (I notice a thread scorning anyone expecting appointments as "left" as Kucinich, for instance) means nothing except a position/policy that primarly benefits workers/ordinary people/the Commons instead of the Oligarchs.

[Two Americas]

24. it is all propaganda

It is a set up - the powerful people in the party and the corporate interests make sure that Kucinich is not heard, is not taken seriously, and then use that as "proof" that the Left is not viable. Kucinich is not viable because before people have an opportunity to fairly hear what he has to say, they are already being bombarded with propaganda that tells them he is not to be taken seriously.

Back when the primaries started, Kucinich was the overwhelming favorite here. The conservatives among us will then say "DU is not representative of the public." That is true. DU is more conservative than the general public, in issues involveing power and economics, but we are better informed. This tells us that were the public better informed, and were Kucinich to have a fair chance, he would have massive support. Our job, then, if we are to have any courage or integrity, would be to inform the public, not to steer the public by telling them what is and what is not "practical" and what they should and should not take seriously.

"The vested interests - if we explain the situation by their influence - can only get the public to act as they wish by manipulating public opinion, by playing either upon the public's indifference, confusions, prejudices, pugnacities or fears. And the only way in which the power of the interests can be undermined and their maneuvers defeated is by bringing home to the public the danger of its indifference, the absurdity of its prejudices, or the hollowness of its fears; by showing that it is indifferent to danger where real danger exists; frightened by dangers which are nonexistent." - Sir Norman Angell

We here should never be siding with and promoting the vested interests, and basking in the glow of the vicarious thrill of an imagined personal association and identification with power. To do so is cowardly and morally bankrupt.

[bread_and_roses]

26. It is indeed morally bankrupt

and there is far too much of it here for me these days.

[Blarch]

34. Excuse me ..

Back when the primaries started, Kucinich was the overwhelming favorite here.

This simply isn't true.

[Two Americas]

35. Edwards either, I suppose

Edwards was winning polls here at one time, as well.

[LWolf]

43. More than 1,000 votes,

more than most DU polls pull, and DK has 35%, with Edwards in 2nd place at 31%. Clinton and Obama both came in at 20%, with Clinton slightly ahead, putting Obama in 4th place at DU:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3649440

He and Edwards were pretty close, with DK usually edging Edwards out. DK and Edwards together WERE overwhelming favorites over all the rest.

[ShortnFiery]

38. Yes, a couple of years back Tweety was so intimidated by the incessant netroots rumblings

that he labeled us (DU, KOS, etc.) "The Pajama Hudeen."

Often times on FOX those on the Net batting for the average American and workers' rights as those dastardly "leftists" or "the chattering classes."

The M$M both despises and fears the influence of the Net, in that, it gives voice to us common folk.

May God Bless the Netroots (aka those within Tweety's, et. al., M$M pseudo-commentators' nightmares) = "The Pajama Hudeen." :evilgrin:

[Blarch]

13. Is that chart accurate ? ...anybody ?

My score was on the edge of the bottom left, almost off the chart. I don't know how to post the pic.

On edit: Here it is ... http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-8.75&soc=-8.82

The result of being from the radical left.

[crispini]

14. They have a pretty decent FAQ there

that explains some of their methodology.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/faq

[Blarch]

16. It seems...

I am 3 times as far from Obama, than Obama is from palin. :shrug: Does not compute. And why does Naders position change in-between graphs ?

[crispini]

17. The change is based on changes in their positions, according to the site:

"This chart was constructed on the basis of the speeches, public statements and , crucially, the voting records of each of the candidates. During the election campaign, we'll be tweaking their positions as, inevitably, some of them change. We'll also be adding other charts as the campaign continues."

As to how they constructed it, I'd just point you to their website's analysis, http://www.politicalcompass.org/analysis2 -- I'm not privy to the workings of the test either.

[GreenPartyVoter]

27. I'm fairly close to where you are too. I feel the site is pretty accurate but then

I like the social democracies of Europe, and I expect that this is how they might see some of our politicians. (I think this is a UK site.)

[illuminaughty]

37. Hey, get off my spot.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-8.75&soc=-8.82 :hippie:

[Solon]

19. This is where I fall on the political compass...

Probably the biggest reason I feel so alienated from American Politics.

[Two Americas]

20. hey Solon

Good to see you. I am down there in the extreme lower left myself.

Here is how I interpret the compass -

Upper right - those seeking wealth and power over others.

Lower right - those seeking wealth, but not power over others.

Upper left - those seeking power over others, but not wealth.

Lower left - those seeking neither wealth, nor power and control over others.

I am convinced that 70% or more of the people are in the lower left quadrant, which is why I do not believe that the political Left is "fringe." The Left seems to be a fringe, because the voices of the few in the upper right drown out the voices of the many, and because siding with power and advocating for the needs and desires of the wealthy and powerful few has so many inherent advantages.

The few dominate the many, be they the "liberal" few or the "conservative" few.

It is only by the elimination of any consideration of the effect of power and wealth on politics that the Left can be seen as fringe, and by the elimination of any voice speaking for the majority of the people.

[Solon]

21. That would be my interpretation, in addition, the wealthy and powerful own the means...

of disseminating viewpoints in the media. The only counterbalance to that is the Internet, that is the only media they don't completely control, and the people of the lower left quadrant can dominate that.

[Two Americas]

25. yes

The wealthy and powerful few control the national political discussion through the mass media.

Our job is to tell the truth - who else will or can? - not to side with the "winners" and compromise on principles and then claim we are being "practical."

[ShortnFiery]

39. Well put! My score is also way into the lower left quadrant.

We're in "good company" IMNSHO, along with the great social justice leaders. :-) :hi:

[carnie_sf]

32. It seems we have similar beliefs

www.politicalcompass.org/facebook/pcgraphpng.php?ec=-8.25&soc=-5.59

[DCBob]

22. I am two squares up and 1 right from you.

Surprising. I thought I was closer to Obama than Kucinich.

[slackmaster]

28. I'm feeling a little leftish this morning

Usually I am closer to the center on left/right.

Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -1.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.41

[BlueMTexpat]

29. Wow, I'm even more of a libertarian leftie than you are!

Economic Left/Right: -7.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.74

This result actually surprises me. It would certainly also surprise some who know me. But it would also help to explain why I liked our Dem candidates, but couldn't fall in love with any one. Obviously, I favored some candidates over others in the primaries. But I was happy enough with Obama as the nominee. I certainly voted for the Obama-Biden combo and am ecstatic that they won. The alternative was simply unthinkable.

I like Obama a lot. I believe that he is a good solid thinking man who deeply feels his responsibilities to our country and to all of us and thus like him even more since the election. But if I am not happy with all of his choices ... and I am not ... I never expected that I would be, so there are no surprises there. Someone like me could never be elected to be President in the US, not in the two-party system that we have. But that's probably not all bad. Or so I must think.

:shrug:

[Mayberry Machiavelli]

30. I think compared to the industrialized democracies of the world, we are clearly to the right. But,

in reference to our own recent history, we are clearly moving towards the left.

The stupid "center right" exit poll stuff is of no importance because it mainly shows the labels that people apply to themselves. What kind of candidates and policies those people voted for tells the story.

[anaxarchos]

31. Nonsense.

It is not to be doubted that neo-liberals want to redefine the "political compass" for that is the origin of this "re-thinking". That does not prevent it from being utter nonsense. Gandhi and the Congress Party had absolutely no problem defining themselves as part of the political spectrum of left to right. In turn, the Congress Party divided into left and right wings.

The "Austrians", who are the theoretical basis of neo-liberalism, were actually well to the right of the Nazis on social policy (favoring the banning of labor unions, in place of "reconciling class struggle" through state intervention in the unions, and so on). This only became an embarrassment when the Nazis started killing off people by the trailer-load. Arguably, the only really Libertarian regime to have existed was Pinochet's Chile - let's stick that into the four-quadrant matrix... "Well, they are authoritarian-libertarians with a side of slaw..."

Attempts to "redefine" well-known, well-understood categories are not often for the sake of "clarity". That goes double for those attempts which conflate fundamental partisanship with soggy stuff like "tactical predisposition" or "intent" or "inner philosophy".

Goes double, again, if the subject is politics.

[Two Americas]

33. but, but, but

We are trying to have a "teaching moment" here, and you are spoiling all of our fun. What could be more important than how each individual liberal positions themselves, in alignment with their sacred personal values, on some imaginary scale that has little if anything to do with politics? If you insist on blowing away the fog we are in, we would have to look reality straight in the face. How cruel can you be? We want to feel good. Why are you persecuting us?

[ShortnFiery]

40. Wow, just ... WOW.

I don't know what to make of this ... IMO, in politics, it's "populists" vs. "corporatists" when you get down to brass tacks. :shrug:

[Two Americas]

41. was being sarcastic

I was just having a little fun with my friend anax.

I agree with your brass tacks. Politics has always been about power and resources - who has access to those and who does not. The right wingers have successfully redefined politics to be about "personal choices" and "values" on "issues" and have told us which issues we should pay attention to - the "cultural war" issues. This has persuaded millions to vote for them and to support a program that only benefits the wealthy and powerful few at the expense of the many, but more importantly for us this has created a tremendous amount of confusion within our own ranks. The most aggressive and domineering voices among us argue against the traditional principles and ideals of the Labor movement, of the political Left, and of the Democratic party. Since they are "good" on the cultural war issues, we are supposed to ignore the fact than on matters of power and economics they are promoting the right wing point of view. we can never win the cultural war battles within a context of right wing economics and authoritarianism, except for the gentrified and aristocratic few - again at the expense of the many. That is why the general public sees the two parties as just different factions of the aristocracy, neither of which cares about them. "Personal choices" don't mean much for most of the struggling working people in the country.

The super wealthy people, by the way, have gone green and organic, don't go to church, have access to abortion, are tolerant of GLBT people among them, ride bikes, support gun control and live all of those "values." They support all of the liberal ideas, for themselves - they just don't want the rest of us to have them. That is a function of power and economics, not values and choices. It is not about which choices, it is who has choices - any choices at all - and for the working people there are fewer and fewer choices of any kind.

[anaxarchos]

45. This four quadrant stuff...

...is just perfect for people like:

Christopher Hitchens,
"Scoop" Jackson Democrats,
Neo-cons who used to be Trotskyites,
Everyone who is afraid of the "mob",
People who think that some independent mythical force can "protect" their "individual rights",
and tens of thousands of newly conservative "leftists".

Then again, a lot of them need 8 or 16 "quadrants".

[LWolf]

42. Of all the systems for political "place,"

I like this one the best. I am about the same place you are on the grid. My place doesn't surprise me, though. It just supports my perception that most American politicians, and all major party players, are a really long way away from where I stand.

I was just thinking about this before I clicked on this thread, wishing that I could see where some historical presidents stand. Where would Washington and Jefferson stand? Adams? Where would Franklin, not a president but certainly a mover and shaker, have been placed?

Where would Eisenhower be? I was thinking this, because, republican though he was, I think he'd be further southwest than all of our mainstreet democrats.

It also puts all the American obsession with "left," "center," and "right" into perspective. I DO see most of the democratic party slightly to the right of center.

[NoPasaran]

44. It's funny

I'm one of the more centrist posters on this site (e.g., I don't consider the DLC a font of evil which must be destroyed), yet here I am a bit to the left of Dennis Kucinich.

Economic Left/Right: -3.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.41



Well, two dimensions are good, three would be better. I'd love to see another version of this with a third axis added measuring Idealism vs. Pragmatism.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

46. The test is patently absurd

Here is "question" #1:

If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.

The presumption itself is ridiculous, there are no definitions and the half-assed query completely ignores what is the very defining term- economic globalization. In short, the question is, in and of itself, completely impossible. Economic globalization can not, by definition, serve anything other than the ruling class.

If a teacher were to ask such an idiotic question and I were the student I would flunk the teacher.

Maybe they should worry less about how people "see and understand the world" and get down with some actual political theory and definitions.

[pork medley]

47. -10, 5.03

test is dumb