Where do you stand on the Political Compass in relation to the candidates?

[Meldread]

(Take the test here.)

I think often we toss around things like so-and-so is not really a progressive/liberal/leftist and whatever. I enjoy the political compass because it allows me to assess how closely someone is aligned to me ideologically speaking.

So, here are the candidates:


What I think is interesting, which is what I like about the political compass, is that it understands that there is a wide range of ideological dispositions. As we can see here, Bernie Sanders, often considered by the Washington Beltway media to be on the "extreme left" is really pretty much center-left. Meanwhile, Clinton is pretty much on the right. (So is Obama, by the way. Clinton and Obama are pretty close ideologically.) Both major parties more-or-less live in the upper right quadrant, which is the authoritarian right.

Here is where I stand:
https://www.politicalcompass.org/yourpoliticalcompass?ec=-7.75&soc=-8.62

Which is:
Economic Left/Right: -7.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.62

I always try and tell people that I am on the "far left", but a chart like this helps illustrate it. Especially when you compare where I stand to where Bernie Sanders stands, LOL! If you notice, I stand in the polar opposite position of the Republican candidates, literally.

I encourage everyone to go off and take the test here. When you are done scroll down to "Show chart in a separate window for printing" then copy and paste the URL from the address bar here so that everyone can see.

I think it will be interesting to see where we all stand in relationship to each other and the candidates.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

1. I took it a while back -7s

Took it in a hurry this time

https://www.politicalcompass.org/chart?ec=-5.75&soc=-7.08




Well to the left of Bernie and a bit left of Gandhi but there is a difference between a world view and a governing philosophy.

[Blue_In_AK]

2. I am always in the lower left-hand corner

about two squares in and two squares up.

I just took this again... Not quite as libertarian as the last time I took it.

Economic Left/Right: -7.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.31

[Rhiannon12866]

8. Me, too - somewhere to the left of Gandhi when he's on the chart.

[Buzz Clik]

3. Somebody put HRC way over on the right? I'll pass.

[JudyM]

4. Once again, choosing not to see the truth...

[Buzz Clik]

7. The truth is HRC is far left, just not as far as Sanders on one issue.

[JudyM]

9. As I suggested, you are not familiar with who she actually is, you are falling for her empty claims.

[Buzz Clik]

13. I'm such a fool.

Why do I not allow myself to believe that she is the most corrupt politician to ever take a breath?
Why am I not convinced she is actually a Republican? A Neocon? Third Way? Neoliberal?
Why do I allow myself to believe that her well-considered policies agree totally with my point of view?

When I grow up, will I be as smart as you?

[JudyM]

16. Well, maybe not, if all you can do is spout off extreme positions and fall for whatever she says at

any given time. Of course you can lay in their cover.

[Buzz Clik]

17. Good point. I have no hope of ever being as insightful as you.

It is with great sorrow that I put you on ignore.

[Meldread]

29. Good to know that you read the FAQ.

How can I be in the same quadrant as Pol Pot/Hitler/Stalin? I'm no Pol Pot/Hitler/Stalin!
The quadrants are not separate categories, but regions on a continuum. The fact that The Pope is in the same quadrant as Stalin does not make The Pope another Stalin. His closeness to the axes makes him a moderate, and therefore closer to Gandhi and Chirac, even though they are in different quadrants. Each quadrant contains enormous variability and can accommodate philanthropists and monsters, differing in the extremity of their views.

You've got liberals on the right. Don't you know they're left?
This response is exclusively American. Elsewhere neo-liberalism is understood in standard political science terminology — deriving from mid 19th Century Manchester Liberalism, which campaigned for free trade on behalf of the capitalist classes of manufacturers and industrialists. In other words, laissez-faire or economic libertarianism.

In the United States, "liberals" are understood to believe in leftish economic programmes such as welfare and publicly funded medical care, while also holding liberal social views on matters such as law and order, peace, sexuality, women's rights etc. The two don't necessarily go together.

Our Compass rightly separates them. Otherwise, how would you label someone like the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan who, on the one hand, pleased the left by supporting strong economic safety nets for the underprivileged, but angered social liberals with his support for the Vietnam War, the Cold War and other key conservative causes?

[Ash_F]

59. 63% of Americans believe minimum wage should be $15 by 2020

Sanders plan is $15 by 2022, If I remember correctly. So Sanders is objectively to right of the electorate on that issue.

On most issues he is about in the center, except maybe death penalty. Most people don't know just how often the courts get it wrong.


And opinion on the death penalty will soon shift as it did on segregation and gay rights. Sanders will be on the right side of history once again.

[polly7]

5. I don't count because I'm in Canada but I'm so far down in that bottom left

corner I'm nearly off the chart.

[CharlotteVale]

20. So am I....to the very left edge, one row up from bottom edge.

[Agschmid]

6. Me...

Lol, further left and more libertarian than Sanders and Clinton.

[Joob]

38. They make me feel like a commy

[RobertEarl]

10. Good to know you must be a Berner

That is almost interesting to me.

[Dem2]

12. I'm to the left of Ghandi

Whatever that means.

[Tarc]

14. "Land shouldn't be a commodity to be bought and sold"

"predator multinationals"

Gee, I wonder what preconceived notions this site creator has...

[Kip Humphrey]

15. Looks like texbook ECON 101 to me.

seriously.

[Tarc]

25. To kids that still think Che Guevara t-shirts are cool, sure...

[hobbit709]

44. Actually I favored this one more

[bjo59]

24. You don't think that multinational corporations are predatory?

[Meldread]

30. They are propositions.

From the FAQ:

Some of the questions are slanted.
Most of them are slanted! Some right-wingers accuse us of a leftward slant. Some left-wingers accuse us of a rightward slant. But it's important to realise that this isn't a survey, and these aren't questions. They're propositions — an altogether different proposition. To question the logic of individual ones that irritate you is to miss the point. Some propositions are extreme, and some are more moderate. That's how we can show you whether you lean towards extremism or moderation on the Compass.

The propositions should not be overthought. Some of them are intentionally vague. Their purpose is to trigger buzzwords in the mind of the user, measuring feelings and prejudices rather than detailed opinions on policy.

Incidentally, our test is not another internet personality classification tool. The essence of our site is the model for political analysis. The test is simply a demonstration of it.

[baldguy]

18. Anyone that puts major Democrats to the Right of Hitler has no credibility.

[okasha]

22. Somebody got fooled by the "Socialism"

in "Nazi."

Obviously Hillary has been displaced to the right and Hitler to the left, by whoever "took" the test on their behalf. The Compass is entertainment and really should be labelled as such. In my case, it's pretty accurate, but as you've observed, it's not consistently so.

[Meldread]

28. It would help if you read the FAQ.

How can I be in the same quadrant as Pol Pot/Hitler/Stalin? I'm no Pol Pot/Hitler/Stalin!
The quadrants are not separate categories, but regions on a continuum. The fact that The Pope is in the same quadrant as Stalin does not make The Pope another Stalin. His closeness to the axes makes him a moderate, and therefore closer to Gandhi and Chirac, even though they are in different quadrants. Each quadrant contains enormous variability and can accommodate philanthropists and monsters, differing in the extremity of their views.

You've got liberals on the right. Don't you know they're left?
This response is exclusively American. Elsewhere neo-liberalism is understood in standard political science terminology — deriving from mid 19th Century Manchester Liberalism, which campaigned for free trade on behalf of the capitalist classes of manufacturers and industrialists. In other words, laissez-faire or economic libertarianism.

In the United States, "liberals" are understood to believe in leftish economic programmes such as welfare and publicly funded medical care, while also holding liberal social views on matters such as law and order, peace, sexuality, women's rights etc. The two don't necessarily go together.

Our Compass rightly separates them. Otherwise, how would you label someone like the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan who, on the one hand, pleased the left by supporting strong economic safety nets for the underprivileged, but angered social liberals with his support for the Vietnam War, the Cold War and other key conservative causes?

[baldguy]

43. The Political Compass also has a left-libertarian bias - something they don't tell you in the FAQ.

It's not an honest assessment of people's political position in relation to others, but is designed to have normal people, with normal views fall into that quadrant. It doesn't take into account what real-world problems politicians face and have to deal with. Which is how they get Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Kerry to be more conservative on an absolute scale than Adolph Hitler. The very idea is ludicrous.

[okasha]

19. I'm about where you are, and have been

sliding further in that direction ever since I first took the test. I don't look for an ideological left-right match in a Presidential candidate because anarchism, which is basically what we both favor, will not work in a diverse society of 300 million plus. Talking to consensus works only in small and essentially homogenous units like the Native American Council Fires.

So instead I look for broad agreement on social justice issues backed by competence, experience and strength in crisis. Purity tests are not useful to me. That means I voted for Hillary in the primary and will do so again in the general. She has detailed, workable steps to reach goals I share, as well as quantifiable means of evaluation at each step. Sanders knows what the problems are, but it's painfully obvious he has no workable, specific solutions

So, I'm with Her.

[Meldread]

31. That is similar to how I vote as well.

I always start out judging candidates on their stance on social justice issues. In this case, Hillary and Bernie were about the same, but Bernie made it more-or-less clear that economic issues were his top priority, not social justice issues. Thus, this tipped things in favor of Hillary on that front.

I then judge candidates based on their other policies, giving them weight accordingly. Bernie Sanders made a lot of promises, like 4% GDP Growth if his policies were adopted, that were just not serious. It was also unclear how Bernie would govern successfully. He was promising a revolution, but he was failing to rally the party around him. On top of that, he was sending the message that he would be a weak leader as he let individuals like DWS step all over him. What this effectively meant was that if he had become President he would not only have Republicans pulling out the knifes and going after him, he'd have Third Way Democrats doing it as well. That would have left him politically isolated and effectively neutered as President. This tipped things in favor of Hillary.

Finally, I make the calculation on what will be best for the liberal movement going forward. Because of the above issues, my fear was that if Bernie Sanders was elected President and failed to achieve anything he promised, all of those who enthusiastically supported him would check out of politics all together--thus hurting the liberal cause in the long run. The general consensus would be, 'Liberalism doesn't work, and the Bernie Sanders Presidency proves it.' The Democrats would then shift further to the right, similar to how they did under Bill Clinton in 1992.

Those are the reasons I voted for Hillary Clinton. I see her as a stop-gap measure to secure the Obama legacy, and hold out hope that we will have a stronger liberal candidate in 2020 or 2024.

[VOX]

21. Way Left...

Economic Left/Right: -8.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.08

[bjo59]

23. Tried it out.

I'm in the middle of the furthest left square and two squares up from the bottom (economic left/right -9.25 and social libertarian left/right -8.05). I don't describe myself as a leftist (just informed and ethical!) but then the criteria to be counted as a "leftist" in the United States does not describe "leftist" in many other countries, I think.

[Chan790]

26. me: economic -8.63, social -8.31

https://www.politicalcompass.org/yourpoliticalcompass?ec=-8.63&soc=-8.31

[PowerToThePeople]

27. About where I normally land

The question is, why are so many lower left people backing an upper right candidate?

[Meldread]

33. I can only speak for myself.

Policies matter, but the difference seems to be a short term vs a long term focus. I understand that I am on the far left, and thus very little of what I want will get enacted. I understand that I am in a coalition party. If you love every member of your coalition, then you are not in a coalition.

My ultimate goal is to shift the country further and further to the left. I wanted to vote for Bernie Sanders. I literally waited to make up my mind a week before my states primary. However, I ultimately voted for Hillary for the following reasons...

My primary motivating issue in supporting a candidate is not economic issues it is social justice issues. In terms of the actual policies that the candidates support, there is not a huge difference between Clinton and Sanders. The difference between them becomes one of focus. Sanders made it clear that he was going to spend most of his time focused on economic issues, and so the thing that I care about the most--social justice issues--gave Clinton a slight edge in that regard. I see Clinton as a cynical politician, who understands that she is in a coalition party, and thus I feel that she will make an attempt to deliver on social justice issues because that is one of the major motivating factors of being part of the Democratic coalition for most of us--like myself.

I then judge candidates based on their other policies, giving them weight accordingly. Bernie Sanders made a lot of promises, like 4% GDP Growth if his policies were adopted, that were just not serious. It was also unclear how Bernie would govern successfully. He was promising a revolution, but he was failing to rally the party around him. On top of that, he was sending the message that he would be a weak leader as he let individuals like DWS step all over him. What this effectively meant was that if he had become President he would not only have Republicans pulling out the knifes and going after him, he'd have Third Way Democrats doing it as well. That would have left him politically isolated and effectively neutered as President. This tipped things in favor of Hillary.

So, this brings me toward my ultimate goal: shifting the country further and further to the left. This means that I had to make a calculation as to what was best for the liberal movement going forward. Because of the above issues, my fear was that if Bernie Sanders was elected President and failed to achieve anything he promised, all of those who enthusiastically supported him would check out of politics all together--thus hurting the liberal cause in the long run. The general consensus would be, 'Liberalism doesn't work, and the Bernie Sanders Presidency proves it.' The Democrats would then shift further to the right, similar to how they did under Bill Clinton in 1992.

Despite what many supporters of Sanders may think, the Democratic Party -IS- further to the left than it was in the 1990's and the early 2000's. Based on polling data for Millennials, there is no reason to believe that this leftward shift won't continue. Thus, my focus shifts away from the Presidency, and toward state, local, and Congressional elections. We need to get as many hardcore liberals as possible into power. This will allow our future generation of leaders to run for higher and higher offices, ultimately capturing the Presidency, and achieving the things that I really want done. I simply understand that this takes time, and is not an issue that is solved with a single election of a single individual.

Those are the reasons I voted for Hillary Clinton. I see her as a stop-gap measure to secure the Obama legacy, and hold out hope that we will have a stronger liberal candidate in 2020 or 2024.

[Grown2Hate]

37. I voted for Bernie in the AZ Primary because he is more aligned with my beliefs across the

board. But your answer was thoughtful and articulate and gave me some good insights. Thank you!

However, to me it's less about a "stronger liberal candidate in 2020 or 2024" than it is about securing a more liberal House/Senate in that time-frame so that policies can be enacted. Bernie is a HELL of a strong liberal candidate; it's just that he'd face a (likely) right wing House and (hopefully) a just BARELY Democratic Senate (hopefully in the sense that I hope we take it back at all).

[Meldread]

48. I agree.

I really wanted to vote for Bernie, and one of my biggest complaints early on was that he was not leveraging his power effectively. He was getting so much small dollar support, and his supporters were really enthusiastic. All of this is great, and he needed to leverage that. One of the best ways to leverage that would have been to endorse, support, and campaign for Democrats running in Primaries across the country. This wasn't just because he was being nice, it would have also been a power play. If they had won their general elections, then he would have had allies in the House and Senate--people he could turn to for support as President--people that owed him favors.

In the beginning I was pro-Bernie, but what gave me my initial pause for concern was how DWS was so openly and clearly in the tank for Hillary. We had O'Malley out there fighting, causing a stink, and Bernie pretty much said nothing. He was actively avoiding the conflict. Then DWS started to do things to deliberately undermine Bernie, and there was that huge fight at the DNC. DWS is a Third Way Democrat, and she is clearly in the tank for Hillary. This was an important moment in the campaign because it was a chance for Bernie to demonstrate how he would use his power as President to ensure that the Third Way Democrats kept in line. ...and he did nothing, DWS continued to screw him. Then the payday loan lender shit DWS is trying to pull with Republicans came out... still nothing. DWS is in a primary. He could have come out and demanded that she step down from the DNC, and he could have even endorsed and supported her primary opponent. There were tangible things that he could have done to send a message that he may be a nice guy, but you don't screw with him or he'll screw you right back. Instead the opposite message was sent.

My fear then became the fact that if Bernie became President, then he would face opposition from not only Republicans, but from Third Way Democrats as well. If we look at how he has actually governed, Bernie Sanders is not all that hard line. He isn't a Ted Cruz--shut down the government if I don't get what I want--type of guy. He is a compromiser. He is realistic and pragmatic. A perfect example of this would be the ACA. He supports, like most of us, a Single Payer system. It was very clear that this was not the direction that Obama and the other Democrats were going. Did he use his power to blow up the process? No, he worked with Democrats to make the ACA as liberal as possible, even though it was far from what he wanted. I imagined that he would govern the same way as President.

The problem with that is he had promised so many major changes by this time, and there was no way the Third Way Democrats would give it to him. He had shown that he wouldn't climb down into the trenches and fight them, the DWS situation being a prime example. So, what was the likely outcome? We had just elected one President on the platform of Hope and Change. People on the left were excited about Obama. While he has done some good things that we like, he hasn't done enough or gone far enough--at least to the degree that we would want. ...and he's had allies in the Senate and the House. Bernie Sanders would only have a handful of allies.

I know so many people on the left who are disappointed about the Obama Presidency, but are amazingly excited about Bernie Sanders. They honestly believe that if he is elected everything will change, and that Bernie's platform will be enacted. I don't. We've seen this happen too many times to get our hopes up again. That is why I was so closely watching how Bernie dealt with DWS. I knew for there to even be a glimmer of hope it would be an ugly and bloody battle--he would practically have to burn Washington D.C. to the ground. I knew the only way he would keep the Third Way Democrats in line is if they were afraid of him, and afraid that they would be primaried from the left--the same way Republicans are terrified of the Tea Party and being primaried from the right.

Thus, my fear was one of a long term problem for the liberal movement. I didn't want people having their hopes dashed--again--and then checking out of politics all together. No one expects much from Hillary Clinton. Politically speaking, she is basically identical to Obama, but slightly more hawkish. Her hawkishness will hopefully be tempered by the fact that there is zero political appetite in the country for stupid wars. This is actually a point the Right and the Left have come to agree on after the disastrous Iraq War. Hillary actually lost an election over it, and if she started a war in her first four years (assuming we were not attacked first) then there is no doubt that she would be primaried for her second term run and she would lose.

So, basically, we have one candidate who is going to keep us on the same path Obama has us on. It's not as liberal as I would want, but it is clearly better than the Republican alternative. It is tolerable. Then we have another candidate who will try and push more center-left policies, but doesn't have the support to get them through Congress--so there is no way that they actually happen. The only real power he would have is on Foreign Policy, and that isn't his major focus.

Thus, my focus is shifted toward preserving the gains we made under Obama--meager as though they may seem--and then turned my attention toward state, local, and Congressional elections. We've lost so much power on the state and local level, and while controlling the Federal Government is awesome and important, a lot of important stuff is also done on the local and state level. As we have seen from Republicans, if we control states we can actually push our agenda there, and get a lot of it enacted. It is also a training ground for future leaders that want to climb to the national level.

If those of us on the left REALLY want to get the type of changes Bernie Sanders has promised, we have to stop thinking in terms of election cycles, and more in terms of 10-20-30 year cycles. It will be about gradually moving the needle. It is also one of the reasons my interest is also turning toward reforming the United States Constitution, to move our government more toward a parliamentary system. There are lots of improvements that we could make to the system. Laying the foundations for a massive constitutional reform should be one of our top priorities, as it will make the rest of our agenda more easily achievable.

So, what we need is a shift in thinking. Hillary Clinton will come and go as President, and whatever meager liberal gains we make under her we must preserve, similar to how we preserve those gains under Obama. However, what we are really trying to achieve is a massive change in our political system and society. If we want to do that, we are going to have to do the hard work in laying the foundation for it.

[Grown2Hate]

50. Another great post. And I thought I was verbose! ;)

Kidding, of course.

That's kind of how my thinking worked in this primary as well. I see Bernie as moving us further to the left quicker from a rhetorical point of view, and we ABSOLUTELY need that. DLC types aren't going to do that voluntarily; it has to be forced. I think just his running has A) made "Socialist" not so much of a dirty word for another up and coming generation, and B) brought some great Democratic ideals to the fore again (single payer, a fair tax structure, income equality, overturning Citizen's United, and many more).

And I voted for Bernie (and would do so again) in the Primary. But I've been called a fake "Bernie" supporter, and even an "orchestrating" Hillary operative on this board (which, let's be frank, in the grand scheme of things, is probably the least horrible thing I've had to deal with in my life) for saying that I will vote for her in the GE SHOULD she win the nomination. It truly is political silly season.

I understand what you mean, in the long run, for keeping the liberal momentum going. I just really hope that doesn't stagnate under HRC. I hope we keep making incremental gains and moving not only the narrative, but the policy. People like Bernie are IMPORTANT for that type of movement. And I hope we can elect someone like him to the Presidency, in a position to MAKE those changes (or further them along) in 8 more years.

Most importantly? We need to not fuck this up and make room for a 6-3 conservative USSC for the next generation (or more).

[Meldread]

53. Yes, I agree entirely.

I welcomed Bernie into the race for all those reasons. I was very angry that the establishment actively crowded out any potential challengers to Hillary. I think when Sanders got into the race, he was primarily doing it to push the issues that he cared about. He was not expecting to win. Then his campaign caught fire, and winning looked like a possibility.

I think one of Sanders major mistakes was sticking too closely to his original intent and strategy. He needed to broaden his coalition of supporters in order to win. He focused to narrowly on economic issues, rather than trying to touch on the issues that each part of the Democratic Coalition cared about most. Meanwhile, Clinton lost those most motivated by economic populism, but made enough gains with everyone else in the coalition to edge him out by the skin of her teeth.

Let me give an example of how things work. My mother is fairly moderate. She has voted for Republicans and Democrats in the past. She is not really into politics, and hates discussing the issue all together. However, there is one issue that sets her on fire: women's issues, and in particular abortion. She is intensely pro-choice. She is easily duped by others when it comes to complicated political issues--especially economic issues and foreign policy. She doesn't really pay attention, it's complicated, and it is over her head. She also isn't interested enough to invest in knowing more about it. So, this means occasionally, I'll hear her use a Republican talking point. However, I have managed to consistently ensure that she has voted a straight Democratic ticket since 2004. How? I knew the issue that motivated her. Every time the issue of abortion rights came up, I would make sure she would see it, and realize that the Democratic candidates were in favor while the Republicans were opposed. Gradually, over time, she has come to dislike the Republican party more and more, and has begun to start to self-identify as a Democrat based on this issue alone.

This is really how we win. I think everyone is to one degree or another like this. Those of us who are politically engaged may have many more issues that we care about, but there are still one or two that we consider more important than the others. The goal is to build a coalition of people who support Democrats, not because they support EVERY issue that Democrats support, but because there is a particular issue that they happen to be liberal on that is of central importance to them. They then realize that it makes sense, if they wish to see that issue protected, to align themselves with Democrats. Meanwhile, those of us who are liberals begin to form the core of the party and its intellectual leaders--the new establishment.

This is where I see the party going in the future.

[PowerToThePeople]

56. I disagree with this whole subthread hijack

[Meldread]

57. That's nice. It's just to bad that you don't have anything substantive to add to it.

[PowerToThePeople]

62. Not worth my time.

Thanks for the offer.

[Meldread]

69. You're welcome. I don't mind it when people admit defeat by refusing to engage.

[Sparkly]

67. Exactly.

[oldandhappy]

32. wow This explains a whole lot of things!!

not just politics

Family interactions also.

wow Thanks

[onecaliberal]

34. Here is mine

Economic Left/Right: -8.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.33

[Garrett78]

35. It's been a few years, but I recall my dot being right about where yours is, Meldread.

Lower left corner.

[Grown2Hate]

36. Very interesting. Verifies what I think I already knew.

Your Political Compass

Economic Left/Right: -7.5
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.33

[BreakfastClub]

39. I am in the same exact spot as Gandhi. nt

[SpareribSP]

40. From the responses here...

Is anyone NOT in the libertarian left?

[Kalidurga]

41. I have never met a liberal who wasn't libertarian left

I have met Democrats that act and sound more like Republicans though here and in real life.

[hobbit709]

45. Just the Clintonistas. They seem to like the right authoritarian section.

[Sparkly]

65. wrong.

[dana_b]

42. I'm with you

Almost exactly. Unlike you, I couldn't vote as you do.

[YouDig]

46. I'm skeptical of how Clinton and Sanders were placed on that chart.

Depending on who fills out the questions for them, they could end up anywhere.

[Lucinda]

66. Her placement is hella incorrect.

Didn't bother with it after i saw that.

[Sparkly]

68. I agree, Lucinda --

AND, socialism is generally quite authoritarian.

Go figure.

[LWolf]

47. I've taken it many times over the years.

I further left and south than any U.S. politician, including Bernie Sanders. I always prefer politicians who land in the same quadrant I do, which tends to be rare.

I find the political compass to be more accurate than what is generally used in the U.S. to characterize politicians.

[SteveG]

49. mine

Economic Left/Right: -6.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.03

[JackInGreen]

51. Last test had me

3 up and 4 in from the lower left hand corner.

[tularetom]

52. Economic Left/Right: -5.88 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.15

About where I predicted I would land, except maybe I thought I'd be a little more to the left on the economic scale.

Actually, every time I take this test, I'm disturbed by the number of questions that contain the words "always" or "never". It makes it very difficult to answer such questions, because very few things are "always" or "never".

[Meldread]

55. That's because they are not questions. They are propositions.

The goal is to test how strongly you feel about certain propositions. That is also why some of them sound really biased one way or another.

[deathrind]

54. Mine:

Economic Left/Right: -7.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.82

[cali]

58. These things are so breathtakingly dumb

The reason is obvious.

[SDJay]

60. Interesting

[IMG][/IMG]

[Ash_F]

61. Mine

https://www.politicalcompass.org/chart?ec=-5.38&soc=-6.92

Some of the questions were real personal so I don't see how they got figures for Sanders/Clinton et al

[Onlooker]

63. Mine, very left, surprisingly (to me) libertarian

Don't really agree with the results. I think I'm quite left, but I'm not particularly libertarian.

https://www.politicalcompass.org/yourpoliticalcompass?ec=-7.25&soc=-5.85

[Meldread]

70. Here is what they had to say on that...

You can't be libertarian and left wing
This is almost exclusively an American response, overlooking the undoubtedly libertarian tradition of European anarcho-syndicalism. It was, after all, the important French anarchist thinker Proudhon who declared that property is theft.

On the other side of the Atlantic, the likes of Emma Goldman were identified as libertarians long before the term was adopted by some economic rightwingers. And what about the libertarian collectives of the mid-late 1800s and 1960s?

Americans like Noam Chomsky can claim the label 'libertarian socialist' with the same validity that Milton Friedman can be considered a 'libertarian capitalist'.

The assumption that economic deregulation inevitably delivers more social freedom is flawed. The welfare states of, for example, the Nordic region, abolished capital punishment decades ago and are at the forefront of progressive legislation for women, gays and ethnic minorities — not to mention anti-censorship. Such established high-tax social democracies consistently score highest in the widely respected Freedom House annual survey on democratic rank eg Denmark ranks 2, Sweden 3 and Norway 7, while comparatively free markets such as the US, Singapore and China rate 15, 74 and 121 respectively (this detailed checklist can be viewed at http://www.worldaudit.org/civillibs.htm).

Despite their higher taxes, the social democracies' degree of social freedoms would presumably be envied by genuine libertarians in more socially conservative countries.

Our point is that a regulated economy and a strong public sector are not necessarily authoritarian, and a deregulated economy with a minimal public sector is not necessarily socially libertarian.

Interestingly, many economic libertarians express to us their support for or indifference towards capital punishment; yet the execution of certain citizens is a far stronger assertion of state power than taxation. The death penalty is practiced in all seriously authoritarian states. In Eastern Europe it was abolished with the fall of communism and adoption of democracy. The United States is the only western democracy where capital punishment is still practiced.

[Sparkly]

64. Whoa -- Lefty Lefty Lefty...