I did not want to hijack the parliamentary system thread with this, so I'm starting a new thread.

In the other thread, George said:

Quote:“...There is a fundamental difference between a person whose first instinct is skepticism toward government, because he is skeptical of who might do the governing, and a person whose first instinct is enthusiasm for government, because he is enthusiastic about who might do the governing. I have met few conservatives who are not in the former category, and ZERO leftists -- ever -- who are not in the latter category.”

I consider myself to be on the left but I'm very skeptical of the government, so I questioned if “left” is really the right term for me.

While researching this, I found the political affiliation quiz at http://www.politicalcompass.org, where they propose a two-dimensional “compass” instead of a left-right axis. FWIW, here is where they plotted various political leaders on their compass in 2012:



This compass supports what one of my friends puts very well (IMO): The Republicans and the Democrats are like the Yankees and the Mets. They are opponents, but they both play Major League baseball. That is, the Romneys and the Obamas aren't really all that different.

My quiz results:

Economic Left/Right: -4.38 (seems low)
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.33 (seems about right)

According to the compass, I'm more left-libertarian than Nelson Mandela and the Dalai Lama--and almost completely the opposite of Romney and Obama! No wonder I'm skeptical of the U.S. government and dislike both major parties.

I'm right-libertarian. None of the world leaders fit into my quadrant. Ron Paul does, when he is listed.

Economic 6.50 (seems right, although I have no idea how Obama is ranked about there, too)
Social -3.08 (seems too close to center, I usually run -6 to -8 on these questionnaires)

Economic: 6.25
Social: -5.03

I'm not sure, but I think the far right of the scale isn't support for the free market but rather support for corporations. I could see Romney and Obama being on my right on that scale, but that's about the only way.

2.75, -1.85. (purple quad)

Economic -1.00, Social -4.15
I like how it has 2 significant digits to give the allure of accuracy.

-2.50, -5.08

The questions seemed a bit eccentric (I wonder how the astrology one was scored?) and perhaps reflect the test designer's personal agenda. This type of test was originated, I believe, by Libertarian party co-founder David Nolan. Usually when they ask more straightforward political questions I score closer to the center economically and even further down the Libertarian axis.

RE: Left and Right and Up and Down

Up and Down, B-A, B-A, Start Start.

Boom, unlimited lives.

(10-12-2013 09:15 PM)jh Wrote:  I'm not sure, but I think the far right of the scale isn't support for the free market but rather support for corporations.

I notice that too.

The failure to understand the difference is a big weakness in our political discourse.

I took the test and a couple pages in realized it looked very familiar. Turns out a friend had forwarded it to me in 2002.

Through the magic of never ever deleting an email, I can do this:
JOwl, ca. 2002: Economic -4.00, Social -6.62
JOwl, ca. 2013: Economic -3.38, Social -5.54

Assuming constant, linear change, I can project JOwl of the future as follows:
Age 47: Economic -2.76, Social -4.46 (WestGray, future me should hang out with current you. Also, I live a few block from W Gray).
Age 58: Economic -2.14, Social -3.38
Age 69: Economic -1.52, Social -2.30 ("Owl-88, You're good on economics but still a damn hippy! " )
Age 80: Economic -0.90, Social -1.22
Age 91: Economic -0.28, Social -0.14
Age 102: Economic 0.34, Social 0.94
Age 113: Economic 0.96, Social 2.02

I'll still be to the left of President Rodriguez in 2046. But that tax-and-spend President Oorglax in 2079 has just got to go. _He's_ worse than space-Hitler.

(10-13-2013 11:01 AM)JOwl Wrote:  ...Assuming constant, linear change, I can project JOwl of the future as follows:
Age 47: Economic -2.76, Social -4.46 (WestGray, future me should hang out with current you. Also, I live a few block from W Gray).
Age 58: Economic -2.14, Social -3.38
Age 69: Economic -1.52, Social -2.30 ("Owl-88, You're good on economics but still a damn hippy! " )
Age 80: Economic -0.90, Social -1.22
Age 91: Economic -0.28, Social -0.14
Age 102: Economic 0.34, Social 0.94
Age 113: Economic 0.96, Social 2.02

I'll still be to the left of President Rodriguez in 2046. But that tax-and-spend President Oorglax in 2079 has just got to go. _He's_ worse than space-Hitler.

That's hilarious.

(10-13-2013 10:29 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(10-12-2013 09:15 PM)jh Wrote:  I'm not sure, but I think the far right of the scale isn't support for the free market but rather support for corporations.

I notice that too.

The failure to understand the difference is a big weakness in our political discourse.

I agree that the test has some odd questions, and I don't know anything about the underlying scoring, but I thought it was interesting as an exercise. :)

This poll comes from UK, check the spellings, and that would account for some of the things that seem quirky to us. The astrology question hits at Christian social conservatives. Which is, of course, a bit strange given Nancy Reagan's astrology interest.

(10-13-2013 10:29 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(10-12-2013 09:15 PM)jh Wrote:  I'm not sure, but I think the far right of the scale isn't support for the free market but rather support for corporations.

I notice that too.
The failure to understand the difference is a big weakness in our political discourse.

Of course, if that's true I have a hard time believing that Milton Friedman is a perfect 10 on economics. I doubt he would have described himself as caring about corporations more than people.

I agree these types of test are interesting. I think they actually need a third dimension for foreign relations - there's as big a difference between isolationists and inverventionists as there is between the measured properties. Of course, then you have to go into the difference between economic and military interactions and things start to get messy. So maybe two is enough.