Breathtaking: To me, this chart says more than a thousand words about the America.

[Smith_3]

http://www.politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2008

Although it is related to the candidates running in the primaries, I post it in GD since my intent was not to debate primary issues, but to point out the fact how nearly all American politicians seem to be packed into that top right corner.

:wow:

[EOTE]

1. Does Gravel really belong that far to the right?

I know he tends more libertarian, so I'd agree with his position on the vertical axis. But further to the right than McCain? Really?

[Smith_3]

4. Apparently he took a hard swing.

In that link, there is some explanation with regards to him.

[Selatius]

9. He favors the FairTax proposal, which is really a 23% sales tax on everything.

The current tax code is sort of flat when you add in all the credits, especially those rich people enjoy. The FairTax proposal puts the burden of taxation on those who purchase the most consumer goods in proportion to their income. A person who spends 20K on food a year and makes 30K/year would pay a larger chunk of his income to taxes than a CEO who makes 5 million a year and spends, say, 40K on food. (I'm assuming he is an extravagant eater)

Both would still pay the same tax rate in terms of the sales tax.

[DS1]

2. If that's based on the same test posted here quiet a bit

it's bunk. That test is designed to throw everyone into that corner because the questions are all black and white in favor of authoritarian and right.

[Smith_3]

3. Actually, everyone I know personally who has taken that test is somewhere in the bottom left.

I don't think its a bunk. The questions are really balanced.

[Kitty Herder]

10. I think, if anything, this test is biased to throw more people into the

bottom, left quadrant. I know a couple people who consider themselves right-wingers who took that test and found themselves just barely in the left/libertarian quadrant.

Whether the test is accurate or not, I think the notion of using two axes to gauge political positions, rather than just right and left makes a great deal of sense.

[erebusman]

27. cant really agree with you

I took that test some months ago and if you go to the bottom left corner, count 3 up, and 3 to the right - that was me. Thats a little more left than I would have self-identified as but it did give me extremely good reasons to understand why I feel like so many "so called" Democrats feel like Republicans to me and the only candidate who felt like they had a chance of representing me was Dennis.

If you read the website and all its explanations; one thing is interesting (even if you disagree with their analysis of the candidates) and that is that we have for too long been led to believe that politics is a two dimensional line from left to right when its demonstrably true that there are many more dimensions to political beliefs that we hold. This chart takes the political spectrum from "left-right" to "top/bottom - left/right" and all of a sudden things look differently. Imagine what a 3 dimensional graph might look like. All of a sudden we'd have a 'front/back' where would our parties candidates show up then?

food for thought at least!

[Smith_3]

28. The question would be what to put on the third axis?

Honesty perhaps? That would be hard to judge objectively. Or maybe continuity, how often someone has shifted position on things? I guess though, it would have to be something that can be based on someones answers to certain questions.

Of course we could always put looks ;-)

[DS1]

38. I suspect there's more than one version of this test

I remember a long time ago a test with results like these was posted, and lots of DUers were getting much farther right than expected.

[Selatius]

5. It is difficult to gauge what measurements they used to derive this chart.

For example, Alan Keyes and Tancredo are almost as authoritarian as Joseph Stalin and Adolf Hitler.

[Jed Dilligan]

12. I'm not sure if the items are properly weighted

Tancredo and Keyes probably turned up as a 1 on a lot of dummy-variable metrics, like "do you support the death penalty?" etc. The difference in magnitude between "do you support the DP for pedophiles, drug kingpins, rapists, etc.?" and "do you support the DP for all your political enemies, including races or peoples you see as hostile?" is not measured--only the percentage of agreement with a set of authoritarian positions.

[Selatius]

15. One metric that still applies in both eras then and now is indiv. freedom v. state power.

For instance, should the government have the power to watch its own citizens' personal activities, ostensibly in the name of "national security"? I realize the question oversimplifies the premise, but it helps illustrate the point as to the debate of where we draw the line between what we perceive as necessary and what we perceive as an infringement.

A classic sign of an authoritarian viewpoint, in my mind, on the issue is if a person says that, "If you did nothing wrong, then you have nothing to hide." I think people have heard that same saying back in the 1930s as they do today in the 2000s. If a person believes that a government merely recognizes rights people "inherently" have, then necessarily spying on them would be trampling on those rights because there is no cause to violate those rights, but if a person believes that people have no rights, then a government can adopt the position that it can automatically spy except if it passes laws preventing that activity.

One grants "rights." The other recognizes "rights." The former, if it can grant a freedom, can just as easily suspend or destroy it. The latter cannot take something that was never granted to it in the first place.

[Jed Dilligan]

17. The mentality is the same, the only question is

whether the magnitude of its implementation should change where someone sits on the scale. Tom Tancredo would be Hitler given the chance--or would he?

[Selatius]

18. I think Bush would be, given his own statements such as...

"It's just a goddamn piece of paper!" in reference to the Constitution or

"Things would be a heckuva lot easier if I were dictator!" to paraphrase.

Ultimately, we don't know. Hitler had the chance to be Hitler in Nazi Germany, but if he gained power in the US today based on his oratory skill and campaigning skills, he might be no different than George W. Bush given the constraints on his power.

Just destroying the pretense of democracy in the US is considered far too risky, at least that is what I imagine they think over there in Wall Street. Otherwise, martial law would've been declared after 9/11 for the sake of securing the "homeland" or the "fatherland." In Nazi Germany, they did eventually toss the illusion of democracy showing the ugly truth because of a weaker democratic tradition or the perception that violence to solve problems was marginally more acceptable than today.

What's holding authoritarian types at bay is that the US has a long history of democratic traditions, and tossing them won't be so easy unless they can fool people into thinking the suspension of those traditions is only temporary and that it will return. This is ultimately how authoritarians introduced the Principate to replace the Roman Senate as the prime vehicle for exercising power. Many people thought that the emperor was there to protect a weakened democracy and that it will be brought back once the danger has passed. That never happened.

[Smith_3]

22. Also, Hitler is probably not a good person to compare with.

By todays standards he would probably have been diagnosed for PTSD at the least. He was in front line in WWI and hit by mustard gas. In large parts, he was an insane person. What is freaky is that so many followed him.

[JackRiddler]

41. No need to paraphrase.

"This would be a lot easier if this was a dictatorship - as long as I was the dictator."

George W. Bush, December 19, 2000 at a meeting with the Democratic Congressional leadership.

[The Straight Story]

6. No surprise really

So many people want to control others in our society, we just have different justifications as to 'why'.

Both sides peddle fear to people - fear of terrorism, smoking, fat intake, insurance costs, and hell the list is about as long as the Alaskan coastline and CA's combined.

Freedom has become something to disdain as there might be people who do things we don't like and we map it to affecting us in some way.

The more laws we make the less we as a people are able to do, and the more among us become either criminals or civil liabilities.

To some, more control over others means more freedom for them. But at some point you have to draw a line and say no more.

Sadly, no one seems to want to draw that line.

[NeedleCast]

13. Well Said

[brentspeak]

7. Yeah, but how accurate is this?

[I work for workers]

40. Not very. None of these people actually took the test,

so whoever took it for them was just making educated guesses. There lack of knowledge and personal bias undoubtedly makes the results flawed at best.

[Smith_3]

42. hmm.

I guess it should not be too hard to guess answers for a politician or a historical figure, just based on the policies they support or supported. Just for example: Under Adolf Hitler abortions were illegal (unless they were forcefully performed on jews, but that didn't count since jews were not considered human beings). That would make a "Abortiions: Strongly Against". Another person might think that Abortions are morally wrong, but not impose laws. That would be "Abortions: Slightly against".

Another thing is however, that the way people view their own opinions and how they seem from the outside may differ. I think it is easy to land in the bottom left corner of that test when you are actually taking the test and don't have the burden of leadership to carry, but when you are in a position of power and making strategic decisions, you might wind up choosing "top right" measures.

[I work for workers]

45. Sure, scoring Hitler might be easy, but how many

politicians actually see the world in such a black and white manner? Most people have shades of grey only they can answer, or other reasons they might have voted for a law then the bill itself (strategic voting, etc).

To go with your abortion example, why wouldn't someone who morally opposes abortion but doesn't want it restricted be slightly for, or even strongly for, since the question wasn't about morality but about restriction?

Don't forget that tests like this reflect the authors bias when they are scored. Keeping up with the abortion theme; let's say a pro-lifer who considers abortion murder wrote the test. He might create it so that it scores a pro-life response as the libertarian option, on the grounds that it protects the child. All of a sudden Hitler's abortion laws are scoring him libertarian points. So far as I can tell, the site doesn't reveal how the test scores are calibrated. Since this test lacks a neutral response (yes, I read the authors rationale on that choice) everyone has to fall into some category, regardless of if it actually fits them. This might be fine for people who are actually taking the test, but it makes it even more difficult to guess how others would answer.

[Mz Pip]

8. Everytime I take this

I fall in the green zone.

Have all these candidates actually taken this test or are the results just speculation?

[Smith_3]

16. I guess its based on their political history mainly.

For many people, it is widely known how they stand on many of those issues.

[Birthmark]

11. I wonder how they even got positions for...

...some of the people on that list. Seems like some adopt their position temporarily depending on their individual political needs that day/week/campaign/issue.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

14. Hillary & Obama are the "moderate right" twins.

Hardly surprising as their differences on the issues are almost identical.

[Selatius]

19. It's why I gravitated towards Kucinich and Edwards more.

At least they weren't so hard core. Of course, Edwards dropped out, and then Kucinich. I'm orphaned in this contest.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. I'm a bystander.

I was for Kucinich as a real anti-establishment politician with real ideas. Now, I'm more bored than interested in the campaign as the two moderates sling shit at each other since they have nothing of substance to debate.

[OwnedByFerrets]

20. Since Murika is seemingly split so evenly.....

wouldnt the perfect candidate be situated right in the center of those 4 boxes??

[Smith_3]

29. A candidate without stances on anything?

Maybe we could elect "Smokie" from the movie "Friday".

Although he would want to legalize weed, and that would tilt him to the bottom slightly...

[seabeyond]

21. i have done this test before. it is cool. i am libertarian center i am proud to say

i know it doesnt do well on du.... but i like balance and indepedence so it does well for me. but it is a fun test to take

[El Pinko]

24. It's not surprising since we have a corporate-run government and media.

...not to mention no leftist political movements of any significance.

[hyphenate]

25. Actually the most distinct fad

that can be had of that entire chart is how out of whack our fucking system is in--we've moved so far to the right that those who would normally show up as centrist are showing farther and farther to the right, and those of us who might consider ourselves more liberal are moving to the center pole.

By these designations, anyone who I might consider radically LEFT to the point of fanaticism, will show up on the chart as being far to the left, but not off it.

It is just going to show that we've gone completely out of whack with the whole shebang.

[Solon]

26. This is why I laugh at those in GD:P who try to say their chosen candidate is "progressive"...

Unless progressive means being center-right while pretending to care about the poor and downtrodden, they are blowing smoke up our asses.

ON EDIT: This is where I fall on the political compass:



Is it any surprise that I would feel so alienated from the American political process?

[Smith_3]

30. Wow, you are hardcore.

And I thought I was sort of leftish...

[Solon]

39. The sad part is that neither of our political parties comes close to representing...

my political views. I agree with Democrats around 40% of the time, and that would be Kucinich, BTW. That's the best they can come up with, for the Republicans, I agree with them about 0% of the time. Voting, for me, seems to be a practice in futility and never ending frustration at the stupidity of our politicians and political process.

In any other nation on the planet, probably excepting Great Britain, I would find at least one political party, that actually wins some national elections, that better represents me than the Democrats ever would. If I lived in Canada, NDP is where its at(not perfect, by far, but better than the Dems), just recently, I took a test in GD to see which party I fit closest to in Norway, of all places, I agreed with "The Reds" 79% of the time, and the Socialist Left 78% of the time. The Reds are Communists, by the way.

Link to my post in the thread I'm talking about:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=3060634#3070424

I think I'm the leftist person on this board. Notice everyone else's score on that test in that thread, I'm the only one who scored highest with the Reds.

ON EDIT: Another thing, I generally view this board, Democratic Underground, as a board for moderates, from my perspective, as far as I can tell, most folks on here are barely center-left, and quite a few are center-right.

[Smith_3]

43. About your add on:

That is probably why DU is a good mirror of the political climate in the US.

[Blue_In_AK]

31. I agree.

I'm about in the middle of that green block, somewhere near the Dalai Lama, and I feel alienated, as well. Our politicians don't even know the meaning of progressive.

[Systematic Chaos]

35. I'm almost there with you. Maybe one square over to the right, half a square up.

Only difference between us is probably that I didn't agree as strongly on a couple points as you did.

I also feel like I'm :banghead: trying to talk to most people. It sucks. :(

[readmoreoften]

50. I'm only one block to the right of you and no blocks to the North.

Nader is a fascist pig (tee hee!)

[defendandprotect]

32. Kinda makes clear that if you want liberty, you want Nader . . ..

However, without IRV voting -- or without a total awakening of the American public, it can't
be done.

Randi Rhodes, however, a little bit back began to talk about the need for a third party ---
AFTER we elect a Dem to straighten things out ....

What Randi was really saying, IMO, is that she regrets that we don't already have third parties
and the freedom to vote for them!!!

Anyone who thinks about this understands that we have to have third parties to break up this
capitalist fiasco with our government/elections ---

It would have been better to have them --- and the FREEDOM to vote for them --- much, much sooner.

[Smith_3]

33. I agree. nt

[defendandprotect]

34. Just want to add that I doubt the haunting of America by Newt Gingrich is yet over ---!!!

Like a plague . . . he'll be back --- !!!

[DutchLiberal]

36. If this is news to you, you have not been paying attention.

(And 'you' is to everybody in general.)

I know this chart from the popular and well-known political compass, but normally Mike Gravel is placed where Dennis Kucinich stands, too.

[hunter]

37. Where's the axis of corruption?

Perhaps "authoritarian" is just a synonym for that...

I do not in any way believe Ralph Nader belongs in the green zone. He's always been a clean up guy for the most toxic manifistations of the "Authoritarian Right," the guy who cleans your carpet and apologizes whenever Big Business takes a crap on it. Consumerism is the pleasant public face of materialism -- it's not the face of a left-leaning libertarian. Ralph Nader is a freak of the right wing and not a creature of the left

Myself, I thought the placement test for this chart was a putrid crock of leading questions.

Politically I'm a Social Justice Catholic, a pacifist who strives to deflect the fist headed for his face, and a hard headed environmentalist who ripped out his front lawn, abhors synthetic fertilizers, pesticides, etc., and hates automobiles with a deep passion.

I see the United States as "The Second Act of the Roman Empire," and I believe it is one of our nation's fatal flaws that our "founding fathers" were so enamored of that civilization. The Pontius Pilates and the Pharisees of the USA simply go by different names now. Hail Caesar! God Bless America!

If I was running this place I'd eliminate the Air Force, Navy, and Army, leaving only the Coast Guard and the National Guard, I'd cut the military budget at least 95%, I'd get rid of the Senate, and redivide the States into natural biomes. Corporations would be subject to the "Death Penalty" but not people. We'd have a National Health Care System run by boring technocrats appointed by the people's representatives, and not private industry. Students would be paid to go to college, most especially those who would become teachers, and health care professionals, and social workers, and engineers, and scientists, and diplomats... etc., etc., generally anyone interested in applying their education toward some public good.

So how 'bout some other axis?

Regressive / Progressive

Stuck in the mud / Forging ahead

Willfully Ignorant / Willfully Educated

Anti-Intellectual / Intellectual

Fearful / Corageous

Materialistic / Spiritual

Selfish / Generous

...

[Mimosa]

44. The Grid is correct

The grid isn't really misleading. A person is an authoritarian if he or she believes the government should have control over the people for whatever greater purposes. A person is authoritarian if he or she believes the government should have first dibs on what you earn from your labour. The IRS is an authoritarian means of collection. A person is authoritarian if he or she believes in the authority of the collective over the freedom of the individual.

It's not all 'left' and 'right', is it?

[12string]

46. I wound up

right between Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama

[flvegan]

47. Don't blame me, I voted for Kucinich.

[alfredo]

48. So I am to the left and much more Libertarian/anarchist than Nader.

[readmoreoften]

49. Yup, that just about says it all.

Sucks that Gravel took that hard right swing. I thought he was going to bring the libertarian party to the left. Ironically, if I remember correctly when everyone took the compass test a few years ago almost everyone landed left and south of Nader. Yet we spend our time arguing over Clinton and Obama. It'd be hilarious if it weren't so pathetic.

[readmoreoften]

51. This has recently changed. Obama was equal on the Authoritarian scale to Richardson last look.

We must've been reassessed or some new votes were considered.

[readmoreoften]

52. In other words: the most conservative dems this election are closer to the most liberal repubs

than Kucinich is to Nader. Chew on that. :crazy:

[moondust]

53. Those Dems in the blue quadrant

probably should be in the reddish quadrant.

[fascisthunter]

54. It's why this country is so fucked up.

One illegal war/occupation, a massive debt we will never see fully paid in our lifetimes (which makes every tax payer a slave) and the drum beat for more. That's just for today....

[Tashca]

55. The median is abit to the right?

If you look at the average it appears this countries leadership has really shifted right....of course we knew that already.

I am so opposite .....no wonder none of them excite me. This is sort of depressing.