NationStates Jolt Archive

As we all know, "left-wing" and "right-wing" don't mean the same thing in different countries. Someone considered strongly conservative in most western European countries may appear left-of-centre by US standards, for example.

The US extreme right is mostly absent from the EU, while the EU extreme left seems mostly absent from the US. On the whole, US politics are heavily skewed to the right by European standards.

So I find the Political Compass' take on the matter rather interesting:

US Primaries 2007 candidates (http://politicalcompass.org/usprimaries2007)
Ireland 2007 (http://politicalcompass.org/ireland)
EU governments 2006 (http://politicalcompass.org/euchart)
UK 2005 (http://politicalcompass.org/extremeright)
New Zealand 2005 (http://politicalcompass.org/nz2005)
Australia 2007 (http://politicalcompass.org/aus2007)
Germany 2005 (http://politicalcompass.org/germany2005)
Canada 2005 (http://politicalcompass.org/canada2005)
US 2004 (http://politicalcompass.org/uselection)


Thoughts and comments?

No major arguments from me, except for two: In the Germany one...I think putting the FDP above the x-axis is a mistake, they're clearly below it. And in the EU Governments one, I find it hard to believe that post-Agenda 2010 Germany wouldn't be further to the right than France (or indeed that Italy is more free-market than the both of them).

I don't think the "political compass" itself is very reliable, so this is an exercise in futility.

The international center would seem to be somewhat to the right of western Europe, and somewhat to the left of the United States. Not a big surprise, for the various historic,cultural and socio-economic differences are fairly clear.

Seems kind of off to me. How is the Canadian Bloc Quebecois, along with most European Green parties (particularly UK) more towards the Libertarian/Anarchism section than Michael Badnarik?

Seems kind of off to me. How is the Canadian Bloc Quebecois, along with most European Green parties (particularly UK) more towards the Libertarian/Anarchism section than Michael Badnarik?

The Bloc Québécois is pushing for a decentralised federal government, leaving Provinces and to a lesser extend regions essentially free to govern themselves as they see fit.

In other words, if Alberta wants to elect religious nutjob rightists bordering on authoritarianism, they should be able to go ahead and do it, while we in Québec can elect center governments with libertarian sympathies. That way everyone's happy and can have the type of government they want to elect without having to contend with a strong centralized federal government that cares little for So-and-So part of the country.

Essentially, the Bloc is pretty much "Live and let live". Hence the libertarian score.

I don't think the "political compass" itself is very reliable, so this is an exercise in futility.

You disagree with everything.

I found it pretty interesting how conservative the US is...

The Bloc Québécois is pushing for a decentralised federal government, leaving Provinces and to a lesser extend regions essentially free to govern themselves as they see fit.

In other words, if Alberta wants to elect religious nutjob rightists bordering on authoritarianism, they should be able to go ahead and do it, while we in Québec can elect center governments with libertarian sympathies. That way everyone's happy and can have the type of government they want to elect without having to contend with a strong centralized federal government that cares little for So-and-So part of the country.

Essentially, the Bloc is pretty much "Live and let live". Hence the libertarian score.

No where near as much as Michael Badnarik, who is rated as even further up on the scale. He is against almost all federal governance, and almost all restrictions on social freedoms. Does the BQ support drug legalization, a total end to censorship, and other social freedoms? And what about the European green parties? I don't see Green parties or the BQ as being more libertarian than Badnarik.

Does the BQ support drug legalization, a total end to censorship, and other social freedoms?
Yup, yup and... yup.

Yup, yup and... yup.

By that do you mean, decriminalizing, taxing, and regulating marijuana? Or do you mean that all drugs can be sold by anyone anywhere? Also, a total end to censorship being that anyone can say, print, and distribute any opinion, regardless of how offensive it is? Any TV station can show anything it wants at any time? This is what I meant by drug legalization and a total end to censorship.

If this is true, then I may have to move to Quebec and vote for the BQ.

http://politicalcompass.org/images/eu.gif

Well, I never. If this website hadn't told me, I'd have gone on thinking Estonia, Slovakia, and Belgium, Germany were separate countries!

I don't think the "political compass" itself is very reliable, so this is an exercise in futility.

He's just upset because Sweden isn't far enough to the left.

Actually, I agree. Although I believe it gives a rough idea of politicians' standings, in some of the graphs (such as EU nations) the data is so clustered it's virtually meaningless.

Also, this website seems to put a lot of the data in the top right corner (right-authoritarian). I don't know if that's a bias with the site or the way the world works (I suspect a combination), but it seems like it would be more useful to break up that corner into four more corners.

This proves that Mike Gravel is the correct choice for President.

...this is clear proof the Political Compass is BS. How can Ron Paul be higher on the Authoritarian scale then Badnarik when they share the same views on practically anything?

A lot of the Quiz questions have nothing to do with political positions.

...this is clear proof the Political Compass is BS. How can Ron Paul be higher on the Authoritarian scale then Badnarik when they share the same views on practically anything?

At most, this suggests that interpreting these individuals' policy prescriptions and actions, and inputing the result into the quiz, is problematic. I would personally like to see something similar to the NPAT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Political_Awareness_Test), where political candidates answer the survey themselves. If even then results seem grossly off, then you have evidence that the test itself is flawed. (edit: but then, of course, we'll have the problem of politicians saying what they believe, rather than saying what they really believe. Which I suppose is really the issue at the heart of your complaint. A person can claim to be for maximization of all liberties, but are they really?)

Personally, I think that Political Compass results as found here, in forum signatures and such, tend to correspond to stated opinions quite well. (edit: But then again, I don't think there are any politicians frequenting this forum)

...this is clear proof the Political Compass is BS. How can Ron Paul be higher on the Authoritarian scale then Badnarik when they share the same views on practically anything?

Very true. Not to mention Ron Paul being more authoritarian than some of the other presidential candidates, which is absolutely wrong.

I would personally like to see something similar to the NPAT (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Political_Awareness_Test), where political candidates answer the survey themselves.
Project Vote Smart (http://www.votesmart.org) shows the results for this; it is very useful.

Very true. Not to mention Ron Paul being more authoritarian than some of the other presidential candidates, which is absolutely wrong.
You mean Ron "War on Immigration" Paul?

And don't give me any of that "illegal" stuff either - the only thing that makes it illegal is the state's declaration of it to be so. Which doesn't exactly conform to libertarian social views in the first place.

Political compasses are pretty useless, they can never take into account all the political differences between countries and their politics and then impose a universal left/right over them, it just doesn't work.

Project Vote Smart (http://www.votesmart.org) shows the results for this; it is very useful.

Yes, I know. I meant I would like to see the Political Compass quiz distributed and answered directly by the various politicians and candidates. :D

On the contrary, I'd bet that the positions of Kucinich and Gravel on such issues as abortion or immigration are indeed far more liberal than those of Ron Paul.

edit: What he said. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13036400&postcount=19) :D
Please shut up with that whole liberal/conservative American crap, it confuses the true meanings.

Very true. Not to mention Ron Paul being more authoritarian than some of the other presidential candidates, which is absolutely wrong.

On the contrary, I'd bet that the positions of Kucinich and Gravel on such issues as abortion or immigration are indeed far more liberal than those of Ron Paul. Ron Paul talks a good game, but...

edit: What he said. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13036400&postcount=19) :D

This proves that Mike Gravel is the correct choice for President.

Hah, I noticed that in some political poll about matching a candidate(a thoroughly stupid one, since it only went for positions on issues, and even then it only went for "support or don't support" rather than the actual reasons behind positions, which are usually far more important and telling than the actual position itself) that I was a 96.8% match for Gravel. I don't think I'd vote for him, though.

Anyway, I find myself more or less in agreement with Neu Leonstein.

Political compasses are pretty useless, they can never take into account all the political differences between countries and their politics and then impose a universal left/right over them, it just doesn't work.

Please shut up with that whole liberal/conservative American crap, it confuses the true meanings.

Irony, oh irony, you are so delightful~!

On the contrary, I'd bet that the positions of Kucinich and Gravel on such issues as abortion or immigration are indeed far more liberal than those of Ron Paul. Ron Paul talks a good game, but...

edit: What he said. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13036400&postcount=19) :D

Ron Paul is against federal funding for abortions, he is not against letting abortions be legal. He is unfortunately in favour of controlling immigration, but he wants a very 'generous' policy in which we would let most people immigrate. None of the other candidates are more in favour of social freedoms.

Ron Paul is against federal funding for abortions, he is not against letting abortions be legal.


So he just wants to restrict the practice so that it is beyond the reach of a particular social class (those who can't afford medical care by their own bootstraps).

See, things aren't as straight forward as one might think.

In fact, I'm for restricting abortion entirely except in cases of medical necessity/emergency. Yet, somehow, I still manage to score -8.21 on the social scale, making me way more libertarian than any American political candidate, period. This probably has to do with my belief that those liberties that I do recognize (there are many, if not abortion) should not be restricted to only the economically privileged class.


He is unfortunately in favour of controlling immigration, but he wants a very 'generous' policy in which we would let most people immigrate.


Paul probably needs to be taking more pills for his split personality.

Please shut up with that whole liberal/conservative American crap, it confuses the true meanings.

Note that when I used the word "liberal" it was with a lower case "l." The word "liberal" simply means "more given to allowing or permitting something."

Please refrain from putting words into people's mouths. Doing so confuses the true meanings.

he is not against letting abortions be legal.

Yes, he is. (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/)

Yes, he is. (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/)

Thing is, about 50% of Libertarians agree with him anyway. So the Republican is still Libertarian.

(I had actually thought Paul was of the "legal, but unfunded" camp also. Thanks for the link. I suppose a responsible person could have found it himself, but I'm not going to vote for him either or any way :D)

Yes, he is. (http://www.ronpaul2008.com/issues/life-and-liberty/)

No he's not. He's for ceding the ssue to the states - just like M. Badnarik.

No he's not.

"The right of an innocent, unborn child to life is at the heart of the American ideals of liberty."

"In Congress, I have authored legislation that seeks to define life as beginning at conception, HR 1094."

"I am also the prime sponsor of HR 300, which would negate the effect of Roe v Wade by removing the ability of federal courts to interfere with state legislation to protect life. This is a practical, direct approach to ending federal court tyranny which threatens our constitutional republic and has caused the deaths of 45 million of the unborn."

"Many talk about being pro-life. I have taken direct action to restore protection for the unborn."

"Many of you may have read my book, Challenge To Liberty, which champions the idea that there cannot be liberty in a society unless the rights of all innocents are protected. Much can be understood about the civility of a society in observing its regard for the dignity of human life."

:rolleyes:

He's for ceding the ssue to the states

So?

He's for ceding the issue to the states so they can ban abortion.

Why is it that so many of Ron Paul's fan club don't seem to be familiar with his positions on basic political issues?

Is it because they just mindlessly follow any politician claiming to be a "libertarian"?

...this is clear proof the Political Compass is BS. How can Ron Paul be higher on the Authoritarian scale then Badnarik when they share the same views on practically anything?

IIRC, they differ on abortion and immigration with Paul taking the more "authoritarian" positions, and I believe Paul's also somewhat less permissive on drugs and gay marriage.

Why is it that so many of Ron Paul's fan club don't seem to be familiar with his positions on basic political issues?

Is it because they just mindlessly follow any politician claiming to be a "libertarian"?

I think it's more desperation than mindlessness, to be honest.

Why is it that so many of Ron Paul's fan club don't seem to be familiar with his positions on basic political issues?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_Dissonance

Why is it that so many of Ron Paul's fan club don't seem to be familiar with his positions on basic political issues?



Specifically?

I am well-aware of what Ron Paul thinks on abortion, I heard him say it on television.

He personally opposes it, but thinks it should be left to the states.

These quotes are not in any way NEW to me.

IIRC, they differ on abortion and immigration with Paul taking the more "authoritarian" positions

Both Badnarik and Paul personally oppose abortion, both of them want it left to the states.

Both of them want the border with Mexico closed.


, and I believe Paul's also somewhat less permissive on drugs

Actually, I have proof of the contrary.

Ron Paul schooling a prohibitionist idiot. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88REf0tjZHo)

I am well-aware of what Ron Paul thinks on abortion, I heard him say it on television.

So, when you said "no, he's not", you meant "yes, he is"?

Left and Right themselves are unreliable and utterly meaningless. Originally, leftists were supporters of the new progressive laissez-faire Capitalist order and rightists were supporters of the old reactionary medieval Feudal Socialist order.

Then around 1900, they switched. Socialists suddenly claimed to be "progressive" and to be supporting the interests of the poor (both are absolute lies). Capitalism was put on the right, but most of what is nowadays defined as Capitalism is not Capitalism (for example, Central Banks are inherently Socialistic, as are Managed Trade Agreements like NAFTA, Corporate Welfare, Militarism and the resulting War Profiteer industry, and arguably "Intellectual Property" as well). Basically, right as commonly used these days, refers to an alternative form of Socialism. Laissez-faire Capitalism is not included on the spectrum anymore.

Of course, everything else goes with your economic positions. You cannot oppose a free economy and yet support freedom elsewhere (whether in foreign policy or in people's personal lives). You also cannot support a free economy without freedom elsewhere. Either you can adopt full Libertarianism or you will eventually adopt full Totalitarianism. There is no middle ground.

To quote Abraham Lincoln, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." Neither can any position between pure Libertarianism and pure Totalitarianism stand.

Thing is, about 50% of Libertarians agree with him anyway.

That's interesting. People have the right to control their own money, but not the right to control their own bodies--not if they're female, anyway.

So, when you said "no, he's not", you meant "yes, he is"?

I will say it again:

Ron Paul personally opposes abortion - he does not want the Federal government to ban it.

This is consistent with the libertarian position.


Back to my original point:

It's silly that the survey mapped Ron Paul and Michael Badnarik differently as their positions are identical.

This proves that Mike Gravel is the correct choice for President.
Oh, does he really exist? I was under the impression that he was just a fictional character that the Compass people invented to give Kucinich some company. The poor guy is all alone down there . . .

I will say it again:

Ron Paul personally opposes abortion - he does not want the Federal government to ban it.

This is consistent with the libertarian position.


Back to my original point:

It's silly that the survey mapped Ron Paul and Michael Badnarik differently as their positions are identical.

Besides putting the Commie Democrats on the right, that is the main reason why the Political Compass is irrelevant.

Neither can any position between pure Libertarianism and pure Totalitarianism stand.

Which is why the vast majority of countries are either communist dictatorships or libertarian paradises? :rolleyes:

That's interesting. People have the right to control their own money, but not the right to control their own bodies--not if they're female, anyway.

Well, "officially" speaking:

"Taxpayers should not be forced to pay for other people's abortions, nor should any government or individual force a woman to have an abortion.
...
We oppose government actions that either compel or prohibit abortion, sterilization or any other form of birth control. Specifically we condemn the practice of forced sterilization of welfare recipients, or of mentally retarded or "genetically defective" individual. We support the voluntary exchange of goods, services or information regarding human sexuality, reproduction, birth control or related medical or biological technologies. We oppose government laws and policies that restrict the opportunity to choose alternatives to abortion.
...
We support an end to all subsidies for childbearing or child prevention built into our present laws."
( http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml#reprodright )

But the issue is rather controversial within the party. At least I assume so, as I don't recall the previous version of the party platform saying "We oppose government actions that...prohibit abortion." That would have alienated too many potential voters. Apparently the party has shifted toward the pro-abortion side.

So my 50% number is probably based on old news. Now that I think about it, I've met exactly one anti-abortion Libertarian, all the rest have been pro-. Then again, Ron Paul is the Libertarian super-hero at the moment, and he is clearly anti-.

At any rate, the anti-abortion Libertarians are of all sorts. Some cite religion, some cite non-religious arguments, others are like me and are against it in principle (with certain situational exceptions) even if not particularly inclined to jail or otherwise punish anyone (a non-broken social and economic system that doesn't produce poverty or prevent access to birth control, and that can build and maintain the social service/welfare infrastructure needed to provide alternatives to abortion would go a lot farther in ending it anyway; This is what I don't get about the conservative anti-abortion crowd. They want to prohibit abortion and everything else that can possibly serve to remove the need to resort to it in the first place. For Jebus' sake conservatives, your social/economic policy is the greatest obstacle to your own cause!!!).

So the anti-abortion Libertarians are out there, even if they are quiet. (From personal experience, I do my best, with the occasional failure, to avoid the abortion debate because being called a misogynist jackbooted fascist despite all evidence to the contrary gets old after a while).

Which is why the vast majority of countries are either communist dictatorships or libertarian paradises? :rolleyes:

Libertarianism tends to be based on a rather strong interpretation of the rationalist school of philosophy. Empirical reality simply doesn't count.

Of course, everything else goes with your economic positions.


A paradoxically Marxian argument. Fascinating.