Our Political Compass
We’ve been asked on more than one occasion just exactly what we mean when we refer to the “upper-right-quadrant” (the URQ), or the “lower-left-quadrant” in our posts.
If you’ve been paying attention, you’ve noticed that the terms “left” and “right” have pretty well disappeared from the bunker lexicon, except as a form of satirical shorthand. We’ve come to believe that they are absolutely useless in defining a persons political philosophy.
Stephen Harper, George W. Bush, and Adolf Hitler, are all politically “right”, something that actually tells you very little about their individual political philosophies. Joseph Stalin, Pope Benedict, and The Dalai Lama are all politically “left”. How many productive political discussions can you generate with that information?
Answer: Very darned few. Although a lot of people still try. And by doing so, they (sometimes deliberately) muddle discussion so effectively that it degenerates into name calling and mud slinging far earlier than it otherwise might.
What’s worse is that many folks actually trim their thinking to fit the cut of the political banner they think they should be sailing under, and treat others as thought they were doing the same. Here at the bunker we don’t like gun control very much, which puts us way to the “right” on that issue…whatever the heck that means.
If you need another example of this look no further than the US invasion of Iraq. Conventional rhetoric tells us that “the right” supports the US president, and that “the left” are a bunch of surrender monkeys who don’t, but if you take the time to really look at who is saying what it’s nowhere near as cut and dried as some would have you believe.
That’s why the bunker has moved away from discussing events and people in terms of the traditional “left” and “right”, and now uses the political axis (or compass) that adds the vertical dimension of Authoritarian/Fascist – Anarchist/Libertarian.
It’s important to pay attention to the difference between things like “state imposed collectivism” (Authoritarinism) and “voluntary regional collectivism” (Anarchism); otherwise Joseph Stalin and Pope Benedict are left at being, well, “lefties”, full stop, end of story.
If you think about that chart you will quickly see that the great horrors of our day have not been perpetrated by “the left” (Stalin), or by “the right” (Hitler), they have been forced upon people by authoritarians – a group that includes both lefties and righties.
So that everybody knows where we stand the bunker has decided to post our political chart. Two of us share a quadrant with Nelson Mandela and the Gandhi…pretty good company. Lily and Max – well, they spent a long time in the Red Guard. What can we say?
So as you can see, describing us (as so many do) as lefties is only half right.
This post has also been saved as a page; the link lives on the sidebar.
I’m slightly lower and slight closer to the centre line than Balb and SL but right there in the same nieghbourhood.
Good to know, comrades.
I’m a whisper away from Nelson Mandela. Who could ask for more?
Economic Left/Right: -5.13
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.87
I guess I’m still a leftist. With such leading questions, I’m not surprised.
What is the issue Adrian? Did the test show you to be too far / not far enough left/right, or more/less authoritarian than you consider yourself to be?
I feel I’m far more right than I used to be, at least more toward the centre, or slightly left of centre. Where I’m positioned, I expect it to be inverse: whereas I am listed as slightly Libertarian, with strong left leanings, I would say I am strongly Libertarian, with slight left leanings.
I too, find this two dimensional quadrant system to be much more informative than the old left-right wings. Interesting – in about two years I’ve grown more libertarian.
When I first took it, I got:
Economic Left/Right: -7.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.92
More recently (on facebook) it changed to:
Economic Left/Right: -7.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.00
The eternal self evaluation ‘eh? The difference between what we think we are, what we are, and what we want to be.
Let the great metaphysical debate begin:-)
I have taken the test they provide a number of times over the last 12 months or so, I always score in the general area of where you see my ‘wee red dot today.
Some of the questions are tough, how does one answer them? Do we answer as we would like the world to be? Or do we answer them as we think the world would work? And do we do that based on what we think? On based on how we think others would act?
I am curious. I can see how the questions would lead one to think, but to what direction do you think they are leading?
I think the bias is very leftist. It asks questions like “Do you think our race is better than theirs” and “do you think evil multinational corporations suck” (paraphrased of course). For instance… how leading are these:
“If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.”
Well, it could have been more neutrally worded:
“Economic globalization is prosperous for both individuals and corporations.”
“No one chooses his or her country of birth, so it’s foolish to be proud of it.”
Foolish? It’s foolish to use that word. Nobody wants to be “foolish”. Reworded:
“One isn’t required to be proud of one’s country, since nobody chooses the country they are born to.”
“Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified.”
What is this? A question directly for George W Bush?
Most people would disagree with this statement. If something defies international law, it’s in defiance of global will.
“The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders.”
Delivering profit to shareholders is not a “social responsibility”. Ergo, the rewrite:
“The only responsibility of a company should be to remain profitable and encourage growth in their market share.”
“Those with the ability to pay should have the right to higher standards of medical care .”
Who is going to agree with ahigher standard? Nobody. Reworded:
“Those with the money to pay, should have the option of privatized medical care to reduce the burden on social security.”
“Governments should penalise businesses that mislead the public.”
An obvious agreement. Better is:
“Government should restrict businesses which make extraordinary claims which might otherwise mislead public opinion.”
Now it’s a question of libertarianism.
“Taxpayers should not be expected to prop up any theatres or museums that cannot survive on a commercial basis.”
What does this mean? A museum is generally public while a theatre is generally private. Why the confusion?
“All people have their rights, but it is better for all of us that different sorts of people should keep to their own kind.”
What is this, a question for the KKK?
“People with serious inheritable disabilities should not be allowed to reproduce.”
What does this mean, exactly?
“Those who are able to work, and refuse the opportunity, should not expect society’s support.”
A leading question, suggesting there are not those who do not work but do not refuse the opportunity either.
“First-generation immigrants can never be fully integrated within their new country.”
An absolutism. Obviously most immigrants can’t be fully integrated. But several are. So I can’t agree with what I would tend to agree with.
“What’s good for the most successful corporations is always, ultimately, good for all of us.”
An absolutism. “Always”? When is anything ever “always”?
“What’s good for the most successful corporations is usually good for all of us.”
Now it’s more neutral.
“A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system.”
A significant advantage of dictatorship? Gimme a break!
“One advantage to a one-party state is that it avoids the bickering and in-fighting of democratic countries perpetually involved in elections.”
“Mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to be homemakers.”
Awkward.
“Mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to their children.”
“Astrology accurately explains many things.”
Who would believe this?
“You cannot be moral without being religious.”
Astoundingly simplistic statement.
“It is important that my child’s school instills religious values.”
A better more neutral way would be:
“It is important my child is educated in both secular and religious ciricculum.”
“Sex outside marriage is usually immoral.”
What does this mean? Sex before marriage? Or extra-marital relations?
Adrian – you have way too much time on your hands. That whole notion of objectivity and neutrality is hogwash. We – including those who created this questionnaire – all wear special lens when we view the world. What we look at or ignore is based on that lens.
I have too much time on my hands?
I just finished the sixth day of my six day work week. Time is relative… you should know that. We all waste time on something. I’m choosing to waste it analyzing a quiz.
I don’t think you understand the dynamic behind the survey, Adrian.
Each of the sentences IS biased – then the respondent is asked to agree or disagree. They’re not supposed to be “neutrally worded”. A neutral formulation of these statements (a) wouldn’t elict quite as clear a reaction, and (b) wouldn’t make it as clear in which “direction” the respondent is reacting.
In terms of an overall “leftist” leaning, I looked at the first page, which contains seven questions. Of those seven, two assert attitudes that I would vaguely associate with “the left” (1 and 3): three assert attitudes that I would associate with “the right (2, 4, 6): the remaining three assert attitudes I have heard expressed by “leftists” and “rightwingers”. I did not find the expression of those attitudes to be beyond the scope of what normally gets said on reasonably moderate blogs and editorial pages.
Whooee! I see from my vast database of personal info, I did the PC test back in November 2003. I just did it again. The questions are different than before.
My 2007 score:
Economic Left/Right: -6.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.00
That’s about the same as in 2003.
Economic Left/Right: -6.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.79
In there with LLQ’s Balbu, SL, Gandhi, Mandela and Dolly Llama.
JB
I did that test about 2 months ago – and I came out just a 1/4 inch below Nelson Mandela.
Makes you feel damn good, don’t it?
(Wondering if some people feel damn good about coming out just a hair above Aznar?)
Economic Left/Right: -8.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.08
I’m in a particularly commie frame of mind. I wasn’t this economically left last time.
Economic Left/Right: 1.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.03
Apparently the only right leaning libertarian. No one else in my quadrant? Anyone?
Bueller…..Bueller….
Interesting – my political compass is:
Economic Left/Right: -5.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.69
Thus, I am a left-leaning libertarian or, as I prefer to call myslef, a middle-of-the-road progressive
Wings are for birds, not for serious discussion.
This will likely cross all wings:
http://djomama.blogspot.com/2007/07/less-than-30-days-to-absolute-tyranny.html