Do you think the existing "standard" left vs. right political spectrum is deficient? If so, what is your take on this spectrum?:
www.politicalcompass.org

Personally, I think the existing spectrum is hopelessly flawed. It makes no sense to me that a capitalist libertarian belongs on the "right" which happens to be the same end where Hitler supposedly resides. Nor should such a libertarian be placed on the left along with Stalin. And the "center" certainly isn't known for its libertarianism either. And doesn't Hitler belong on the left with Stalin anyway? After all, he was an authoritarian, just like Stalin, and believed the German economy, like everything else, should be controlled by the State, and that everything was at the disposal of the State. Sounds alot like Stalin to me. So why are they at opposite ends of the scale?

As for the above linked 2-dimensional spectrum as a suggested replacement for the existing 1-dimensional spectrum, I don't think the test results can be very accurate because it asks questions that are assumed to have a certain meaning that they should not. For instance, if you don't like abstract art, that counts as a point towards authoritarianism on the assumption that you think your opinion of it should be enforced through government.

Also, the 2-dimensional spectrum seems flawed in its very nature to me. It scales virtically from libertarian (lack of government control) to authoritarian (total government control) and horizontally from "left" (government controlled economy) to "right" (free market). But how can one be a "left-libertarian"? How can you be in favor of government control of the economy while being opposed to government control period?

It seems far better to me to adopt at least a linear spectrum that scales from no government (perhaps on the right?) to total government. This spectrum would therefore simply describe the extent of government.

But of course, it could be said that a large degree of government control can be used in different and opposite ways. So perhaps a triangular spectrum? One where one point is no government and then it moves from there toward more and more government control, with each remaining opposite point being the type of application of that government control?

So what do you think of the existing spectrum? What about the above listed replacements? Do you have any suggested replacements of your own? Or perhaps refinements to one of the above mentioned?

I think that would lump together even more disparate groups of people than in the examples you objected to earlier. Where, for example, would a traditional Moral Majority conservative go - on the right because they favor keeping the government out of the boardroom, or on the left because they want the government in the bedroom instead? What about their exact opposite, the techno-hippie? The division into two axes - roughtly economic and social/moral - seems like a pretty good starting point for understanding where someone is coming from. Maybe the questions don't do a very good job of sorting people into those rough ideological categories, but that's sort of a different problem.

I'd also like to know who chose left from right on the spectrum. It's not like you're watching a football game where the teams are going left to right or right to left. Where did the use of directionality when it comes to political "leanings" come from?

Well, clearly it started from those on the 'right'. This naturally assumed that those opposed were 'wrong', and that's not much of ideology to hang your hat on, is it. So, that group just changed it into a directional thing.

Here is a good explanation of the "left" and "right" terms:

History of "left wing" and "right wing"

Allow me to address Orat's question about being a "left-libertarian." This is a fairly accurate way to describe me. I do believe that government is, at best, a necessary evil. This explains the "libertarian" part.

What about the "left" part? Well, this comes about once I ask myself what part of government do I most fear. For the most part, I have no patience with government interference with consensual sexual behavior among adults, for example. I also think that there should be absolute separation of church and state. I believe that same-sex marriage and multiple-partner marriages should have the exactly the same legal status as "traditional" marriage. My strongest opinions about restraining government come in such "cultural" issues.

On the other hand, I tend to be a little more "moderate" about economic issues. Although I certainly recognize many good things about the "free market" system, I am not convinced that it is absolutely perfect in all possible situations. Some very limited regulation is needed to avoid grotesque abuses. (For example, laws that are intended to ensure that food and water are safe to consume.) To be sure, there are often government abuses of this kind of power, and it needs to be carefully restrained. Like fire, this power needs to be used with great care to avoid disaster; but, like fire, I would not want to be without it.

There are also more or less non-political reasons why I am comfortable with the label of "liberal" without being fond of government. I consider myself a feminist (not necessarily thinking that government is the solution to sexism); I am not religious (which should have nothing to do with it, but which tends to ally me with the "liberal" community); I do not eat meat and I believe animals have certain rights (again, without necessarily thinking government is the answer to the problem.)

I think the "two-dimensional" model is pretty good, although certainly not perfect.

Actually a left/ right spectrum would work pretty well if there were just two lines, one for economic issues and one for social issues. Most libertarians would be to the right on economic issues and to the left on social issues.

Platypus:

Hmmm... these examples would seem to map quite easily to the left/right authoritarian scale I described.


Maybe, but it seems to me that you can't very well expect a government to heavily control the economy and stay out of social affairs at the same time. Likewise you can't expect the government to heavily regulate social conduct and expect a terribly free market. There's just too much cross-over between the two fields. Economic activity frequently spills over into the social sphere, and vice versa.

If you hand over a chunk of power to the government, be it democratic or otherwise, you will tend to get legislation in similar proportion in all fields. How many times have we seen more liberal governments that promoted civil rights morph into quasi-authoritarian governments restricting freedom of speech and religion in an effort to curb "hate speech" or "intolerance"? This didn't happen in spite of the government's limited nature. It happened BECAUSE the government was not limited, it was handed power to do as it pleased (or as the masses pleased). And one would be hard pressed to find a nation where economic powers of government are restricted separate from social powers.

So I submit that in terms of end-results, granting power to government in one sphere will very likely spill over into the other sphere. So it would seem to me that a scale of government power is appropriate as it would accurately reflect the end result.

As a compromise, I think the triangular system would work as it allows people to assign themselves economically/socially while still illustrating that this is a scale of government power. And it all meets at the bottom point of the triangle which represents true anarchy (sensibly, true anarchy does not allow for either left or right government positions since there is no government so it makes sense to meet at a point).

Instead of just repeating already-stated points ad nauseam until people give up and stop disagreeing publicly, I'll just provide a link to another two-axis political survey that attempts to improve on the done-to-death Political Compass. It's a little long at 75 questions, but the questions seem more direct than the PC ones did.

I find these kinds of tools useful in only one regard: that they introduce people to the idea that the left/right spectrum is limited, and that there are different ways to look at things other than the "conservative" and "liberal".

But overall, these really have limited use, don't they? What is the point of being "classified" in any way?

I generally object to labelling, because I think we are all so unique as individuals, and I find labelling and classifying to be an unproductive thing to do. It allows people to write off other people's views in ways that are not usually accurate. I have yet to find two people that agree on everything, and even those whom agree closely with one another often have different underlying reasons for their views.

Labelling groups and attributing common characteristics to the whole group (Ex: libertarians are rigid thinkers, conservatives are religious nuts, liberals are bleeding hearts...) is a too-often used technique, and I think it detracts more from debate than any value it might add.

For my part, I have learned much more engaging people on the content and background of their individual views on specific issues. In doing so, I find that many of the stereotypes we attribute to groups break down pretty quickly. I have also found it very difficult to have discussions with those who seem to have already labelled me, and therefore respond to things I haven't actually said, and attribute views and characteristics to me that are simply not founded.

So in answer to the original question, I would say that I have very little use for these spectrums at all. I see little point in trying to find a really good one. (I know, I posted one myself recently, but my recent experiences on this site have caused me to rethink this a bit). I'm curious what use others think these tools might have.

Hmmm.... I'm not sure how much better that 2D graph is... I'm unclear as to the significance of pragmatic/idealistic dimension. I also think the test failed miserably to properly graph my position as I was placed not too far from Hitler. This wouldn't make much sense since I'm extremely opposed to government interference in one's life in all respects.

I agree with PrismPaul's comments. I don't think it is productive to apply labels too much... however, there are times when terminology becomes very useful, if not necessary when discussing certain issues.

Broadly, I agree with PrismPaul. These types of attempts to broaden debate beyond simple left/right ideologism are useful to that extent, but not much farther. They're not to be taken seriously any more than the kind of relationship quizzes that women's magazines have. If you treat them in the same way, as a bit of fun, they are harmless and they do add a little more shading.

To Orat, I would say that many of your objections to the placings on the left/right axis seem to me to stem from a peculiarly American perception of what the "left" is i.e. government control of everything. It is not necessarily about government controlling everything in it's ideology, it has only been that in the practical applications of governmental socialism.

For example, a traditional libertarian leftwinger would not necessarily want the government to control industry - it is more important that the workers do that. This could be achieved just as easily by making the workers more important in business decision making than shareholders, or actually making them one and the same (by only giving or selling shares to workers).

A whole economy of workers' cooperatives would fufil the socialist desire that ownership of the means of production should reside with workers by hand or brain (a paraphrase of the old Labour Clause IV) without government being involved. Indeed, this type of interpretation of left-wing ideals holds out a great deal more hope in a basically capitalist system that some of the worst excesses of capitalism might be reined in without losing the incentives to innovation and, certainly, without losing competition.

In this context, it is perfectly possible to be a classic left-winger and a libertarian.

A two-axis model like this is more useful than a one-dimensional model (the old left-right spectrum), but it does have limitations, particularly in categorising the likes of Stalin & Hitler, as you point out. People have got around this in the past by saying that if you go far enough in either direction along the simple left/right spectrum, you end up coming round the other side. Hitler and Stalin both took state control of industry, Stalin because it gave "workers" (i.e government) control, Hitler because he wanted a constant state of war, one line of thinking goes. Another is that what we normally call "commmunism" was in fact state capitalism - the workers didn't own anything, and the state owned everything.

Myself, I would argue that whatever their politics, their primary motivation and application of their ideas was through totalitarianism, which is not really related to either axis.

Maybe a third axis of totalitarianism/participation is needed. It's similar to libertarian/authoritarian superficially, but at root is about the level of involvement expected of the people in day-to-day government, rather than the level of interference in daily life expected of the government.

For example, at one extreme, you would have the direct democracy of the ancient Greeks, where every voter was part of the parliament. Moving "down" (if the axis is a vertical "z" axis in a notional 3-D matrix) you'd pass through the kind of government by plebescite becoming more common in EU countries, passing through a wide area of ordinary voter participationthat would typify most democracies, where the only active participation is during elections.

Below the y-x plane, you start to see public participation being ignored or restricted (Florida 2000 anyone? ), then actively discouraged, until you get to true totalitarianism where is simple is not permitted, for example in real or de facto one-party states (like Saddam's Iraq or Mugabe's Zimbabwe, or even , more benignly, post-war Japan) or where there is no semblance of democracy at all (Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, China, etc.)

In this model, Hitler and Stalin would both be well below the xy plane.

Edited to add

I just though of a good illustration of the 2D matrix. Authoritarians on both sides generally disapprove of drugs, prostitution, gambling, and so on, so tend to call for bans on them or resist legalisation. Libertarians say "do what you will" and aruge that people should be allowed to do what they want.

A right-wing libertarian sees taxes as theft by government, but a left wing libertarian would allow drug use, prostitution, etc, but would tax them to both raise revenue for their spending ideas and to discourage the behaviour, which few people actively approve of, libertarian or not.

This is one of those areas where I simply don't understand the logic being used... whether it's "workers" or "bureaucrats", it's still a government. If the decisions made are backed up by some kind of force, it is government.


Hmmm... well, this is the first time I'm hearing this argument from someone else. I've been proposing for a long time that people try these kinds of solutions in the free market, but all I get is blank stares. But seeing as how you are the first person I've seen aside from myself suggest this kind of solution, I have to wonder how true it is to say that people who are typically oriented "left wing" fall under such a description. Almost invariably I hear these "leftists" calling for more and more government intervention in the market.


Yes, but I have a difficult time accepting someone being called a libertarian that believes government should tax arbitrarily in an effort to engineer society. That runs completely contrary to the concept of non-interference which libertarianism embodies.

Perhaps this is where "leftists" don't really understand what libertarianism is? A true libertarian believes that government does not have the authority to arbitrarily tax and manipulate as the poeple, or anybody else, see fit. All the so-called "leftist libertarians" I've seen believe that a democratically controlled government has carte blanch to do whatever the "will of the people" is. Which means, in principle and sometimes in practice, that government, while it may not exercise all power, possesses all power. What liberties are enjoyed by the population have been graciously granted by "government" or by "society". That doesn't sound very libertarian to me, and if enough people hold that view long enough, the government will eventually not resemble anything remotely libertarian.

So I maintain that people traditionally graphed as "leftist" cannot be called "libertarian" at the same time. If they truly are against the idea of government (in all its forms) interfering in the life of the individual and are therefore legitimately called libertarian, then I think that places them outside what is usually accepted as being the "left". You can say what you want about supposedly left-libertarian things such as European anarcho-syndicalism, but all such ideologies I've seen still call for government control, they merely fail to properly define government. They think that since it's called the rule of the "workers" that it is somehow something fundamentally different, which it is not.

The most important aspect of looking at the 2D political models instead of the linear ones is to expand people's view of the world. The linear model of right/left is one which supports the two party system. The two party system is flawed. Getting voters to think beyond the either/or model of voting would be progress towards improving society. The 2D models contribute to expanding people's thought process as the role of government and the policies it should have.

IMO, the following description more accurately describes American Politics.

Corporate Internationalists—Nations should control the flow of people across borders, but not the flow of goods, capital, and profit. Sometimes called the “Rockefeller Republicans.” Globalists.

Business Nationalists—Multinational corporations erode national sovereignty; nations should enforce borders for people, but also for goods, capital, and profit through trade restrictions. Enlists grassroots allies among Regressive Populists. Anti-Globalists.

Economic Libertarians—The state disrupts the perfect harmony of the free market system. Modern democracy is essentially congruent with capitalism.

National Security Militarists—Support US military supremacy and unilateral use of force to protect US national security interests around the world. A major component of Cold War anti-communism.

Neoconservatives—The egalitarian social liberation movements of the 1960s and 1970s undermined the national consensus. Intellectual oligarchies and political institutions preserve democracy from mob rule.

Platypus,

I took the test you posted. Verrry interesting. According to it I'm a pragmatic centrist, just slightly right of center, and just slightly more pragmatic than idealistic. I wonder how that squares with how the posters here would rate me.

That actually sounds pretty accurate, Izdaari. You seem to be well balanced between idealism and pragmaticism.

I took the same test and got moderately far left (very close to halfway between pure centrist and maximum possible left) and just a little more pragmatic than idealistic. I am very close to Charles Kennedy, leader of the (British) Liberal Democrat Party, on this graph. This all seems pretty accurate.

Tests like these are good for thinking about what one truly believes. (I noted, for example, that I often had to answer "no opinion" on purely economic issues.) Obviously they should be taken with a grain of salt, but they can be helpful.

Yeah, but Victoria, the thing is I think I scored centrist by being radical left on some things and radical right on others, averaging out to more or less centrist. Of course there are a few issues, like abortion, where I really am in the middle. I do tend to go with what works, so I can see the pragmatist part.

I think this is where the idea of a third axis that ranks the expectation of individual participation in the government. I was ranked as left libertarian by the first quiz - and thats pretty much what I expected. But then, I expect each and every person to be actively participating in an informed political process and even after the officials are elected it is our duty to doggedly watch the powers that be, and as set forth by our founding fathers, we then have the duty to hold the elected government accountable to the people. (of course, we could add another dimension of cynic v optimist as I also don't think America comes even close to this informed, active political participation and thats why many problems arise in our system).

Also, many leftist libertarians see the government as an agent of economy - meant to protect the individual against the corporation - and the government should not become the corporation as is the problem in communism. Also, government using taxation to influence people towards a certain view on an issue is wrong - however, laws or taxation passed with the intent of protecting a universal right (ie right to healthcare, right to free speech) are acceptable - but once again, should be carefully scrutinized by the people - and pursued in the courts (as part of checks and balances) if necessary.

I do like the idea of seeing political views according to a broader spectrum than simply left v right. Of course, many left libertarians might think as I do that people should not be categorized and summarily judged - but in general political discussions - and even in party politics, generally categories can be helpful. But we have to recognize people are not 100% predictable machines.
Of course, another option of categorization that can allow for more variables would be something akin to the Meyers-Briggs personality test - with four separate spectrums. We would have to include the class left v right (L or R) with regards to govt economics - and I like the authoritarian v libertarian (lets say A or B ) spectrum... then a third could be expectation of participant v non-participant (or maybe participant v follower?) populace (P or N) and maybe finally taking from the second quiz idealists v pragmatist (or maybe just idealist v cynic - so I v C or G for pragmatist)....
Then maybe I would have to class my political "leanings" as LBPC but I would be real close to the middle on the last one - but then again, everytime I've taken one of those personality tests I'm on the line for E/I and P/J..... so This type of system wouldn't quite group everyone into perfect lines by any means - but that would not be the goal, just to broaden the spectrum.

I know this would still miss some people and some combinations might seem contradictory (how about an RBPI or LANC?) but then again, people aren't machines and sometimes our thought processes are perfectly rational to ourselves, and yet completely illogically.

Perhaps it is time to concoct new terms to replace ones such as "Libertarian" as well? Libertarianism, as I understand it, wants government to have very little control or power. A government that has enforces healthcare as a "right" (which theoretically would require the servitude of everyone in the "healthcare" profession) could hardly be termed libertarian according to this understanding. And when you mention laws to protect free speech, I wonder if you mean laws restricting government regulation of speech, or laws mandating the appropriation of media resources, etc? Do you mean laws that could force a radio station to carry a particular point of view, etc? Or laws that could force an employer to keep someone employed regardless of whether they disagree with their expressed views? I think these are indeed the sorts of examples of contradictory views you described. For instance, how can we say we have freedom of speech if the owner of radio equipment cannot decide what message he/she wants expressed but rather has it dictated to him/her by the government?

Many who would otherwise be categorized as "left-libertarian" hold views like these and I personally find them very contradictory. So perhaps we need to concoct both a new spectrum and new terms as well?

I suppose alot of this also has to do with your perception of the meaning and realities of the various categories in question as well. For instance, those on the "right" would view even a government that interferes with and highly regulates business, even if highly participatory, as authoritarian. Whereas those on the "left" tend to think of businesses as the threat to freedom and government as the people's tool to keep it in check. By contrast those on the "right" see government as the threat to freedom.

By simply asking something like, "are you authoritarian?", you'll only get an answer colored by that person's perceptions of what is authoritarian and what is not. Likewise, I think those who have devised some of these "tests" themselves have superimposed these kinds of personal biases into their tests unintentionally.


I think you're on to something here. Your suggestions for categories are very good, and I might even say that you've presented a good start to an effort to craft a new classification system. Your examples using a 4-letter designator is very attractive to me as it would give a fairly good thumbnail sketch of one's philosophy while being very brief. However, while it might be easy to communicate through text, it might prove more cumbersome to communicate in speech. Nevertheless, with some more work, this could be turned into a standardized system that could summarize one's political philosophy very efficiently. Good job!

yes I agree on both points - the left-libertarian views can seem to be contradictory - but I think (at least in the original quiz 2d grid) it would be unlikely for someone to score at the extreme bottom left corner. I was in the dead center of that corner grid. At least for me as a left-libertarian, the key is in finding balance between the two somewhat contradictory views. This is why I also believe it is very important for people who are on the opposite end of the "spectum" or at least think differently than me to speak up and participate in my government as well. Of course, I also want to be somewhat idealistic and see government as a representation of the people with the intent of protecting the people. Thus a law protecting free speech would be one limiting the governments regulation of speech. But at the same time, the govt would have to prevent larger media moguls from quelling the speech of individual people or smaller media outlets. It is all of course very confusing and can seem contradictory, but the key is really balance b/n the two views.

Of course, this may seem less contradictory if we used another term besides libertarian, but I really don't have enough recall of all those terms I learned in college to come up with a better (perhaps more descriptive) term to use.



I definitely saw some of these biases - but that is why a good test developer will constantly revamp the test as needed in an effort to eliminate this source of bias. That is another interesting question of whether it is ever possible to truly eliminate bias of the writer from a test? or is a test necessarily biased if it is to accomplish the goal of the test administrator (ie, in order to class people in preset categories)

on a more personal note, I really like this topic and hope more people might read and post because it is very easy to get caught in the black and white view of political affiliation.