Which commonly made sage talking point is more annoying?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

And if we needed any more proof of how much of True Leftist nonsense that is (the writeup is far more notable than the chart): http://politicalcompass.org/uselection2012

[Lief 🗽]

I took the test, answering as Obama would (though some of it is guess work, because a lot of the questions are ridiculous and have nothing to do with policy) and came in basically at the center, a little south into the libertarian half. I have no idea how you can take the test with Obama's positions and get a result anywhere near what that idiot did.

[Mordecai]

If the political compass was accurate, than even in with the most right-wing results I got I'm apparently only as far right as Obama and as libertarian as Jill Stein. So, yeah, that chart is complete bullsh**t.

Again, you continue to see things from solely an American perspective. On a worldwide scale, not the kind that relies heavily on an Overton Window within a particular contemporary context, Obama is a conservative.

Yeah yeah, I know Obama is conservative by international standards. But is he really that far to the right?

He's that far to the right because the entire American political spectrum is skewed that far to the right. Is that really so hard to understand? You need to look outside the borders of America. It's the most capitalist country on the face of the earth, of course the left-wing politicians are going to be considerably far more to the right than their counterparts in Europe.

Is that really something you find unbelievable? The political compass is supposed to represent the political positions of people as far apart as Hitler and Gandhi. You really expected to find Obama firmly in the left quadrant? Of course Obama and Romney are going to be that close on the graph, that's the converging effect that the political system has on politicians. This is not something you should find surprising. As candidates Obama and Romney are going to be more mainstream and converged around similar positions than people like Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul.

That's not to say that Obama and Romney are exactly the same, but to pretend that they don't more or less agree on a significant number of positions is naive. Let's not forget we're talking about a President who adopted wholesale the opposing candidate's state healthcare reform plan. A healthcare plan based on markets and private insurance companies.

[Mechaman]

If the political compass was accurate, than even in with the most right-wing results I got I'm apparently only as far right as Obama and as libertarian as Jill Stein. So, yeah, that chart is complete bullsh**t.

Again, you continue to see things from solely an American perspective. On a worldwide scale, not the kind that relies heavily on an Overton Window within a particular contemporary context, Obama is a conservative.

Yeah yeah, I know Obama is conservative by international standards. But is he really that far to the right?

He's that far to the right because the entire American political spectrum is skewed that far to the right. Is that really so hard to understand? You need to look outside the borders of America. It's the most capitalist country on the face of the earth, of course the left-wing politicians are going to be considerably far more to the right than their counterparts in Europe.

Is that really something you find unbelievable? The political compass is supposed to represent the political positions of people as far apart as Hitler and Gandhi. You really expected to find Obama firmly in the left quadrant? Of course Obama and Romney are going to be that close on the graph, that's the converging effect that the political system has on politicians. This is not something you should find surprising. As candidates Obama and Romney are going to be more mainstream and converged around similar positions than people like Dennis Kucinich or Ron Paul.

That's not to say that Obama and Romney are exactly the same, but to pretend that they don't more or less agree on a significant number of positions is naive. Let's not forget we're talking about a President who adopted wholesale the opposing candidate's state healthcare reform plan. A healthcare plan based on markets and private insurance companies.

Be that as it may, I've taken the "test" dozens of times.  While some questions may be vague life lessons ("When you're worried it's best not to worry about things," WTF?), most of them are pretty freaking obvious policy questions.  In order for somebody to get the scores that Obama supposedly has they have to answer the test like a fundamentalist wackjob.
And I'm not making that up.  TJinCleve took the test and ended up with a more left winged score than Obama supposedly has on their test.

I mean, I probably fall into the category of True Leftism, but these guys are obviously on something.

[Mechaman]

I took the test, answering as Obama would (though some of it is guess work, because a lot of the questions are ridiculous and have nothing to do with policy) and came in basically at the center, a little south into the libertarian half. I have no idea how you can take the test with Obama's positions and get a result anywhere near what that idiot did.

If I had to guess they probably were assuming what issues were being passed under Obama.  And even then it would require a bit of a stretch of the imagination as Obama hasn't passed a nationwide abortion ban or ban flag burning.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The Political Compass charts are a great example of how you can get people to believe utter nonsense just by putting it in fancy graphs and charts and all. Their agenda has become more obvious with that writeup and wasn't all that disguised before (one amusing thing about their previous charts was labeling one dot "Labour/New Labour") and it's not just on US or British politics that they're so ridiculous, note this chart.

And once again, to say Obama is the equivalent of a far right whackjob in Europe has some very odd implications. It states that the Thatcherites are the equivalent of left wingers in the US, which would only be possible if unions in the US were actually completely illegal or something, while in fact someone like Scott Walker's actions on unions would be completely at home in a European conservative party. Also look at the actual far right nutjobs in Europe's positions on immigration, and compare it to Obama.  Imagine if a US politician proposed that children of immigrants have completely separate schools to avoid them from "tainting" American culture. This was actually proposed by the leader of what was once the largest right wing party in Austria. The US is also certainly not the most capitalist country in the world, what country is is tough to discern and it's not like this can even be objectively measured, but somewhere like Switzerland or some East Asian countries would be better candidates (even if you exclude those micronation tax havens), even a country like Germany in some ways has an economy that's less regulated than the US's. The fact that company unions are illegal in the US is a topic rarely brought up but worth considering.

The US is also far more friendly to marijuana legalization than almost all other countries, and Obama hasn't exactly stood in the way, despite the demonization he gets from libertarians over this he did hamstring the Justice Department from doing more against states that legalized it, and he could've done A LOT more if he was serious about stopping it, and he even issued guidelines recently that would protect banks doing business with legal marijuana sellers, and essentially prevented some overzealous federal prosecutor from filing charges over them doing business with illegal drug sellers.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

All the time. Might I point out someone is arguing for one of the points in this very thread.

One person doing something does not make it common.

[IceSpear]

If the political compass was accurate, than even in with the most right-wing results I got I'm apparently only as far right as Obama and as libertarian as Jill Stein. So, yeah, that chart is complete bullsh**t.

Again, you continue to see things from solely an American perspective. On a worldwide scale, not the kind that relies heavily on an Overton Window within a particular contemporary context, Obama is a conservative.

Based on what, exactly?

Based on the fact that the chart includes ideologies such as fascism, communism, etc. I know in America you've been conditioned by the media and the GOP to believe that Democrats are leftist or even center-left, but they aren't by any stretch of the imagination.

Yeah yeah, I know Obama is conservative by international standards. But is he really that far to the right?

I took the test, answering as Obama would (though some of it is guess work, because a lot of the questions are ridiculous and have nothing to do with policy) and came in basically at the center, a little south into the libertarian half. I have no idea how you can take the test with Obama's positions and get a result anywhere near what that idiot did.

In regards to both of these posts, they actually had Obama much more to the left in their 2008 chart. I'm guessing they're going by what policy he's actually implemented since taking office rather than his stated positions, which the former are clearly much more conservative than the latter.

And once again, to say Obama is the equivalent of a far right whackjob in Europe has some very odd implications.

Nobody said that. I said he was ideologically comparable to a mainstream UK Conservative, and he is.

Also, there's been about 10 responses along the lines of: "lol political compass sux", "lol it was made by a true leftist". Is that really the best you guys have? If you're going to try to disprove something, at least use actual evidence.

[traininthedistance]

Also, there's been about 10 responses along the lines of: "lol political compass sux", "lol it was made by a true leftist". Is that really the best you guys have? If you're going to try to disprove something, at least use actual evidence.

It's better than anything the Political Compass has.

I mean this very seriously by the way.  Their irredeemably tainted ramblings have been repeatedly demolished on this site for years and years, including by people whose political inclinations would normally be just as left-wing as them (IIRC Al has had especially harsh words for them).  They are not valid evidence for anything but their own silliness, and if you're going to cling to them then the only appropriate response is to not take your arguments seriously anymore.  Which would be a shame.  So, please, I'm begging you, find some actual evidence for your claims and drop them like a hot potato.

[IceSpear]

Also, there's been about 10 responses along the lines of: "lol political compass sux", "lol it was made by a true leftist". Is that really the best you guys have? If you're going to try to disprove something, at least use actual evidence.

It's better than anything the Political Compass has.

Why, because it disagrees with the groupthink?

Just because center-right/right-wing governments are MUCH more common than the left-wing variety doesn't mean the entire political spectrum should be shifted to accomodate that, making center-right the new center-left and right-wing the new center-right. Of course, the Overton Window and the media has tricked most Americans into believing that Democrats and Republicans actually represent the center-left and center-right respectively, but I'd have expected members of a forum that views politics from a worldwide and comprehensive perspective to be more astute.

Edit: In regards to your edit, I'd like to see these "harsh words" and debunkings of the Political Compass. If they're based on actual evidence instead of just "lol they sux" then I'll certainly reconsider taking them seriously. As for evidence aside from that, I welcome you to give me some big ideological differences between David Cameron and Barack Obama. And "Cameron would be more conservative in the US/Obama would be more liberal in the UK" do not count, since they're based on hypotheticals and not real life.

[Supersonic]

If the political compass was accurate, than even in with the most right-wing results I got I'm apparently only as far right as Obama and as libertarian as Jill Stein. So, yeah, that chart is complete bullsh**t.

Again, you continue to see things from solely an American perspective. On a worldwide scale, not the kind that relies heavily on an Overton Window within a particular contemporary context, Obama is a conservative.

Based on what, exactly?

Based on the fact that the chart includes ideologies such as fascism, communism, etc. I know in America you've been conditioned by the media and the GOP to believe that Democrats are leftist or even center-left, but they aren't by any stretch of the imagination.

Yeah yeah, I know Obama is conservative by international standards. But is he really that far to the right?

I took the test, answering as Obama would (though some of it is guess work, because a lot of the questions are ridiculous and have nothing to do with policy) and came in basically at the center, a little south into the libertarian half. I have no idea how you can take the test with Obama's positions and get a result anywhere near what that idiot did.

In regards to both of these posts, they actually had Obama much more to the left in their 2008 chart. I'm guessing they're going by what policy he's actually implemented since taking office rather than his stated positions, which the former are clearly much more conservative than the latter.

And once again, to say Obama is the equivalent of a far right whackjob in Europe has some very odd implications.

Nobody said that. I said he was ideologically comparable to a mainstream UK Conservative, and he is.

I consider myself a mainstream British conservative and I certainly don't see myself as ideologically comparable to Obama.

[IceSpear]

I consider myself a mainstream British conservative and I certainly don't see myself as ideologically comparable to Obama.

Do you see David Cameron as ideologically comparable to Obama? If no, why not?

[traininthedistance]

Also, there's been about 10 responses along the lines of: "lol political compass sux", "lol it was made by a true leftist". Is that really the best you guys have? If you're going to try to disprove something, at least use actual evidence.

It's better than anything the Political Compass has.

Why, because it disagrees with the groupthink?

If all you have to say in response to the following points:

The Political Compass charts are a great example of how you can get people to believe utter nonsense just by putting it in fancy graphs and charts and all. Their agenda has become more obvious with that writeup and wasn't all that disguised before (one amusing thing about their previous charts was labeling one dot "Labour/New Labour") and it's not just on US or British politics that they're so ridiculous, note this chart.

And once again, to say Obama is the equivalent of a far right whackjob in Europe has some very odd implications. It states that the Thatcherites are the equivalent of left wingers in the US, which would only be possible if unions in the US were actually completely illegal or something, while in fact someone like Scott Walker's actions on unions would be completely at home in a European conservative party. Also look at the actual far right nutjobs in Europe's positions on immigration, and compare it to Obama.  Imagine if a US politician proposed that children of immigrants have completely separate schools to avoid them from "tainting" American culture. This was actually proposed by the leader of what was once the largest right wing party in Austria. The US is also certainly not the most capitalist country in the world, what country is is tough to discern and it's not like this can even be objectively measured, but somewhere like Switzerland or some East Asian countries would be better candidates (even if you exclude those micronation tax havens), even a country like Germany in some ways has an economy that's less regulated than the US's. The fact that company unions are illegal in the US is a topic rarely brought up but worth considering.

The US is also far more friendly to marijuana legalization than almost all other countries, and Obama hasn't exactly stood in the way, despite the demonization he gets from libertarians over this he did hamstring the Justice Department from doing more against states that legalized it, and he could've done A LOT more if he was serious about stopping it, and he even issued guidelines recently that would protect banks doing business with legal marijuana sellers, and essentially prevented some overzealous federal prosecutor from filing charges over them doing business with illegal drug sellers.

I took the test, answering as Obama would (though some of it is guess work, because a lot of the questions are ridiculous and have nothing to do with policy) and came in basically at the center, a little south into the libertarian half. I have no idea how you can take the test with Obama's positions and get a result anywhere near what that idiot did.

Also, if Stewart Alexander is only halfway to the fullest extent of the economic left, what would a 100% economic leftist look like? How far can you go beyond socialism?

Also there's plenty of amusing things about that chart of the British parties above, but there's one that stands out that I feel the need to highlight: the closest party to Labour is the DUP.

... is vague and lazy charges of "groupthink", then well I guess you can keep digging that hole.  But you're not doing yourself or your arguments any favors.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

It's reasonable to claim that Obama is further right than would be acceptable for a leader of many mainstream European leftist or center-left parties, at least historically; it's even reasonable to claim--and Obama himself has intimated or come close to intimating this in the past--that there are some vaguely One Nation or Red Tory-type elements to his worldview, policies, and rhetoric, or that he's fundamentally a centrist or a pragmatist who's shown an openness to center-right policy proposals that leftists could and should find worrying. What it's not reasonable to claim is that Obama or the Democratic Party as a whole would be, overall, notably right of center--in other words anywhere past center-center-right, One Nation, Red Tory, or what-have-you--on the political spectra of most European countries as they currently exist, or that there are no substantive differences between him and American politicians who really are very far to the right by world standards.

[IceSpear]

Also, there's been about 10 responses along the lines of: "lol political compass sux", "lol it was made by a true leftist". Is that really the best you guys have? If you're going to try to disprove something, at least use actual evidence.

It's better than anything the Political Compass has.

Why, because it disagrees with the groupthink?

If all you have to say in response to the following points:

The Political Compass charts are a great example of how you can get people to believe utter nonsense just by putting it in fancy graphs and charts and all. Their agenda has become more obvious with that writeup and wasn't all that disguised before (one amusing thing about their previous charts was labeling one dot "Labour/New Labour") and it's not just on US or British politics that they're so ridiculous, note this chart.

And once again, to say Obama is the equivalent of a far right whackjob in Europe has some very odd implications. It states that the Thatcherites are the equivalent of left wingers in the US, which would only be possible if unions in the US were actually completely illegal or something, while in fact someone like Scott Walker's actions on unions would be completely at home in a European conservative party. Also look at the actual far right nutjobs in Europe's positions on immigration, and compare it to Obama.  Imagine if a US politician proposed that children of immigrants have completely separate schools to avoid them from "tainting" American culture. This was actually proposed by the leader of what was once the largest right wing party in Austria. The US is also certainly not the most capitalist country in the world, what country is is tough to discern and it's not like this can even be objectively measured, but somewhere like Switzerland or some East Asian countries would be better candidates (even if you exclude those micronation tax havens), even a country like Germany in some ways has an economy that's less regulated than the US's. The fact that company unions are illegal in the US is a topic rarely brought up but worth considering.

The US is also far more friendly to marijuana legalization than almost all other countries, and Obama hasn't exactly stood in the way, despite the demonization he gets from libertarians over this he did hamstring the Justice Department from doing more against states that legalized it, and he could've done A LOT more if he was serious about stopping it, and he even issued guidelines recently that would protect banks doing business with legal marijuana sellers, and essentially prevented some overzealous federal prosecutor from filing charges over them doing business with illegal drug sellers.

I took the test, answering as Obama would (though some of it is guess work, because a lot of the questions are ridiculous and have nothing to do with policy) and came in basically at the center, a little south into the libertarian half. I have no idea how you can take the test with Obama's positions and get a result anywhere near what that idiot did.

Also, if Stewart Alexander is only halfway to the fullest extent of the economic left, what would a 100% economic leftist look like? How far can you go beyond socialism?

Also there's plenty of amusing things about that chart of the British parties above, but there's one that stands out that I feel the need to highlight: the closest party to Labour is the DUP.

... is vague and lazy charges of "groupthink", then well I guess you can keep digging that hole.  But you're not doing yourself or your arguments any favors.

Leif: Already responded to that one. Most likely based on actual policy implemented during his term as opposed to stated policy positions. In 2008 he was shown as more to the left than in 2012.

Rep. Deus: There are different degrees of socialism just like there are different degrees of capitalism. Regardless, Communism would still be to the left.

Long name guy: Just having an "agenda" in and of itself doesn't disprove the charts, although it is a reason to be wary. I also responded to this, nobody said Obama was comparable to a far-right whacko in Europe, but to a mainstream European conservative. In fact, I expressly disagreed with the original poll that said "far right European parties are left of the Dems". I do agree with you that immigration is one of the few issues that Democrats are to the distinct left of European conservatives, but that doesn't erase all their other similarities. Obama still totally opposes marijuana legalization or decriminalization, just because he didn't order the feds to drone all marijuana dispensaries doesn't make him any more liberal on the issue.

Also, I'm still waiting with bated breath for these huge ideological differences between Obama and Cameron.

[IceSpear]

It's reasonable to claim that Obama is further right than would be acceptable for a leader of many mainstream European leftist or center-left parties, at least historically; it's even reasonable to claim--and Obama himself has intimated or come close to intimating this in the past--that there are some vaguely One Nation or Red Tory-type elements to his worldview, policies, and rhetoric, or that he's fundamentally a centrist or a pragmatist who's shown an openness to center-right policy proposals that leftists could and should find worrying. What it's not reasonable to claim is that Obama or the Democratic Party as a whole would be, overall, notably right of center--in other words anywhere past center-center-right, One Nation, Red Tory, or what-have-you--on the political spectra of most European countries as they currently exist, or that there are no substantive differences between him and American politicians who really are very far to the right by world standards.

I'm not one of the "both parties are the same, writing in Bernie" blah blah people. I work with what I'm given. The Democrats' center-right policies are far more preferable to the GOP's far-right policies. But I'm not going to delude myself into thinking that Democrats are left in any way shape or form just to feel better about voting for them.  And yes, I do agree with you that in Europe the GOP would be a fringe party that would rarely if ever crack 5% of the vote.

[traininthedistance]

I guess I'll add, as an explication to my first post in this thread, if one were to take the positioning of the Political Compass at face value... what the hell do you do with not just the current European xenophobic far-right parties, but what about monarchism?  Islamism?  Feudalism?  Fascism?  Lochner-era jursiprudence?  The anti-gay laws in places like Russia, Jamaica, and Uganda?  Restrictions on free movement or free speech, caste systems, slavery?  The tax haven policies of various microstates the world over?  I can understand putting the Dems in the center-right portion in terms of economic policies, that weaker claim is something I'd possibly even agree with, but to put them far right, or to put them so high on the authoritarian axis, is just facially ridiculous.

There are so, so, so many ways to be right-wing, not just right of the Dems but even more right than the GOP, but so little space for that on their chart.  Meanwhile there's this gaping hole on the left, and yeah, there are many different ways to be left-wing but it utterly beggars belief to claim that it's in any way proportional.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

That's also a problem with the idea that a two-dimensional chart with x and y axes and nothing more is an at all comprehensive or even particularly useful tool for comparing political ideologies in general.

[Хahar 🤔]

If the political compass was accurate, than even in with the most right-wing results I got I'm apparently only as far right as Obama and as libertarian as Jill Stein. So, yeah, that chart is complete bullsh**t.

Again, you continue to see things from solely an American perspective. On a worldwide scale, not the kind that relies heavily on an Overton Window within a particular contemporary context, Obama is a conservative.

Based on what, exactly?

Based on the fact that the chart includes ideologies such as fascism, communism, etc. I know in America you've been conditioned by the media and the GOP to believe that Democrats are leftist or even center-left, but they aren't by any stretch of the imagination.

And one of those is on the left and the other is on the right. That's an argument for the Democrats being a centrist party, not a right-wing party.

[courts]

If the political compass was accurate, than even in with the most right-wing results I got I'm apparently only as far right as Obama and as libertarian as Jill Stein. So, yeah, that chart is complete bullsh**t.

Again, you continue to see things from solely an American perspective. On a worldwide scale, not the kind that relies heavily on an Overton Window within a particular contemporary context, Obama is a conservative.

Based on what, exactly?

Based on the fact that the chart includes ideologies such as fascism, communism, etc. I know in America you've been conditioned by the media and the GOP to believe that Democrats are leftist or even center-left, but they aren't by any stretch of the imagination.

And one of those is on the left and the other is on the right. That's an argument for the Democrats being a centrist party, not a right-wing party.

^^^
if obama is 'conservative' then the term has become even more nihilistic than i thought

[Lief 🗽]

I'm gonna go through the questions, answering as I believe Obama would and how he has governed. I've tried to be harsh on him, while at the same time not traipsing off into True Leftist fantasyland. You guys tell me if you disagree with the answers.

"Barack Obama's" results:
Economic Left/Right: -2.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.87

If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations. Agree

I'd always support my country, whether it was right or wrong. Agree

No one chooses his or her country of birth, so it's foolish to be proud of it. Strongly Disagree

Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other races. Strongly Disagree

The enemy of my enemy is my friend. Agree

Military action that defies international law is sometimes justified. Agree

There is now a worrying fusion of information and entertainment. Agree (No idea, but this sounds like the kind of thing Obama (who has sort of a communitarian/parental streak, would maybe agree with it?)

People are ultimately divided more by class than by nationality. Disagree (No idea? But I guess the point of the question is to find out if you have a Marxist conception of class which Obama doesn't, so I put disagree.)

Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment. Disagree

Because corporations cannot be trusted to voluntarily protect the environment, they require regulation. Agree

"from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a fundamentally good idea. Agree

It's a sad reflection on our society that something as basic as drinking water is now a bottled, branded consumer product. Agree (Again, I don't think Obama's ever commented on this "issue," but based on his personality he'd probably agree? On the other hand, it's not like he's implemented policies to prohibit selling water, so who knows how this question is supposed to be answered.)

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

It is regrettable that many personal fortunes are made by people who simply manipulate money and contribute nothing to their society. Disagree (Probably agrees in principle but has done nothing in practice to change this.)

Protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade. Disagree

The only social responsibility of a company should be to deliver a profit to its shareholders. Disagree

The rich are too highly taxed. Disagree (Despite True Leftist hooting and hollering, Obama has raised taxes on the rich.)

Those with the ability to pay should have the right to higher standards of medical care . Agree

Governments should penalise businesses that mislead the public. Agree

A genuine free market requires restrictions on the ability of predator multinationals to create monopolies. Agree

The freer the market, the freer the people. Disagree

Abortion, when the woman's life is not threatened, should always be illegal. Strongly Disagree

All authority should be questioned. Disagree

An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. Agree (Obama probably personally disagrees, but it's the reality of being a commander in chief of a sovereign country that this principle guides your foreign policy to an extent... only the most extreme of left-wing or isolationist politicians would disagree with this.)

Taxpayers should not be expected to prop up any theatres or museums that cannot survive on a commercial basis. Disagree

Schools should not make classroom attendance compulsory. Disagree

All people have their rights, but it is better for all of us that different sorts of people should keep to their own kind. Disagree

Good parents sometimes have to spank their children. Disagree ()

It's natural for children to keep some secrets from their parents. Agree ()

Possessing marijuana for personal use should not be a criminal offence. Disagree (Obama has stated that he agrees with this, but at the same time he has hardly championed federal marijuana legalization, BUT at the same time, as BRTD has pointed out, he's hardly stood in the way of state marijuana legalization. So it could go either way.)

The prime function of schooling should be to equip the future generation to find jobs. Strongly Agree

People with serious inheritable disabilities should not be allowed to reproduce. Strongly Disagree

The most important thing for children to learn is to accept discipline. Disagree ()

There are no savage and civilised peoples; there are only different cultures. Agree

Those who are able to work, and refuse the opportunity, should not expect society's support. Agree

When you are troubled, it's better not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things. Agree (wtf??? come on political compass guy, how do you have any idea what politicians think about this question)

First-generation immigrants can never be fully integrated within their new country. Disagree

What's good for the most successful corporations is always, ultimately, good for all of us. Agree

No broadcasting institution, however independent its content, should receive public funding. Strongly Disagree (Obama has clearly not tried to abolish PBS and NPR...)

Our civil liberties are being excessively curbed in the name of counter-terrorism. Strongly Disagree

A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system. Agree

Although the electronic age makes official surveillance easier, only wrongdoers need to be worried. Agree

The death penalty should be an option for the most serious crimes. Agree

In a civilised society, one must always have people above to be obeyed and people below to be commanded. Agree

Abstract art that doesn't represent anything shouldn't be considered art at all. Disagree

In criminal justice, punishment should be more important than rehabilitation. Disagree

It is a waste of time to try to rehabilitate some criminals. Agree

The businessperson and the manufacturer are more important than the writer and the artist. Strongly Agree

Mothers may have careers, but their first duty is to be homemakers. Strongly Disagree

Multinational companies are unethically exploiting the plant genetic resources of developing countries. Disagree

Making peace with the establishment is an important aspect of maturity. Agree

Astrology accurately explains many things. Strongly Disagree

You cannot be moral without being religious. Disagree

Charity is better than social security as a means of helping the genuinely disadvantaged. Disagree

Some people are naturally unlucky. Disagree ( again, wtf)

It is important that my child's school instills religious values. Disagree

Sex outside marriage is usually immoral. Strongly disagree

A same sex couple in a stable, loving relationship, should not be excluded from the possibility of child adoption. Strongly Agree

Pornography, depicting consenting adults, should be legal for the adult population. Agree

What goes on in a private bedroom between consenting adults is no business of the state. Agree

No one can feel naturally homosexual. Strongly Disagree

These days openness about sex has gone too far. Disagree

Now someone can answer this as David Cameron would and we can compare.

[Cassius]

Also, there's been about 10 responses along the lines of: "lol political compass sux", "lol it was made by a true leftist". Is that really the best you guys have? If you're going to try to disprove something, at least use actual evidence.

It's better than anything the Political Compass has.

Why, because it disagrees with the groupthink?

If all you have to say in response to the following points:

The Political Compass charts are a great example of how you can get people to believe utter nonsense just by putting it in fancy graphs and charts and all. Their agenda has become more obvious with that writeup and wasn't all that disguised before (one amusing thing about their previous charts was labeling one dot "Labour/New Labour") and it's not just on US or British politics that they're so ridiculous, note this chart.

And once again, to say Obama is the equivalent of a far right whackjob in Europe has some very odd implications. It states that the Thatcherites are the equivalent of left wingers in the US, which would only be possible if unions in the US were actually completely illegal or something, while in fact someone like Scott Walker's actions on unions would be completely at home in a European conservative party. Also look at the actual far right nutjobs in Europe's positions on immigration, and compare it to Obama.  Imagine if a US politician proposed that children of immigrants have completely separate schools to avoid them from "tainting" American culture. This was actually proposed by the leader of what was once the largest right wing party in Austria. The US is also certainly not the most capitalist country in the world, what country is is tough to discern and it's not like this can even be objectively measured, but somewhere like Switzerland or some East Asian countries would be better candidates (even if you exclude those micronation tax havens), even a country like Germany in some ways has an economy that's less regulated than the US's. The fact that company unions are illegal in the US is a topic rarely brought up but worth considering.

The US is also far more friendly to marijuana legalization than almost all other countries, and Obama hasn't exactly stood in the way, despite the demonization he gets from libertarians over this he did hamstring the Justice Department from doing more against states that legalized it, and he could've done A LOT more if he was serious about stopping it, and he even issued guidelines recently that would protect banks doing business with legal marijuana sellers, and essentially prevented some overzealous federal prosecutor from filing charges over them doing business with illegal drug sellers.

I took the test, answering as Obama would (though some of it is guess work, because a lot of the questions are ridiculous and have nothing to do with policy) and came in basically at the center, a little south into the libertarian half. I have no idea how you can take the test with Obama's positions and get a result anywhere near what that idiot did.

Also, if Stewart Alexander is only halfway to the fullest extent of the economic left, what would a 100% economic leftist look like? How far can you go beyond socialism?

Also there's plenty of amusing things about that chart of the British parties above, but there's one that stands out that I feel the need to highlight: the closest party to Labour is the DUP.

... is vague and lazy charges of "groupthink", then well I guess you can keep digging that hole.  But you're not doing yourself or your arguments any favors.

Leif: Already responded to that one. Most likely based on actual policy implemented during his term as opposed to stated policy positions. In 2008 he was shown as more to the left than in 2012.

Rep. Deus: There are different degrees of socialism just like there are different degrees of capitalism. Regardless, Communism would still be to the left.

Long name guy: Just having an "agenda" in and of itself doesn't disprove the charts, although it is a reason to be wary. I also responded to this, nobody said Obama was comparable to a far-right whacko in Europe, but to a mainstream European conservative. In fact, I expressly disagreed with the original poll that said "far right European parties are left of the Dems". I do agree with you that immigration is one of the few issues that Democrats are to the distinct left of European conservatives, but that doesn't erase all their other similarities. Obama still totally opposes marijuana legalization or decriminalization, just because he didn't order the feds to drone all marijuana dispensaries doesn't make him any more liberal on the issue.

Also, I'm still waiting with bated breath for these huge ideological differences between Obama and Cameron.

Well, for starters, their respective positions on budget deficits and debt are pretty much opposed. Whilst it is true that under Obama cuts have been made to government expenditure, his main priority seems to have been going for growth, unlike Cameron, whose 'mission' in government seems to be to balance the budget and reform the public services (by streamlining and decentralising them and so forth). There are major differences on economic policy between the two, it's just that Obama hasn't been able to implement a lot of his agenda due to the presence of a GOP controlled House. Let's take another issue, immigration. Cameron has made it clear that he'd like to see immigration sharply reduced. Obama, whilst not exactly making the opposite case, has called for amnesty for illegal immigrants, something that I'm sure Cameron would never do.

But, to digress from this argument, it really is like comparing apples and oranges. Our experience in the UK with the issue of immigration is completely alien to the American experience, because we're in a different part of the world, receiving different immigrants, with a different society for them to be slotted into. We don't (really) have the big foreign policy debates that you do, because we're far less influential as a world power than we once were. Our economy is very different to yours, and thus, again, the political issues that surround it are different. To put it more simply, comparing a U.S. President with a UK Prime Minister is like comparing William Gladstone to Nick Clegg. Gladstone, if he lived in our age (assuming of course that his mindset didn't really adapt to the modern world) would probably be considered as being to the right of Nick Clegg. Yet, in his day, the government's that he led enacted some quite radical changes, which, if not left-wing per se, can be seen as more 'progressive' for his time than the positions of Nick Clegg today. Again, all comparisons must be contextualised, otherwise there is just no point in comparing them.

As for the political compass test, its a biased failure. I can't say it any plainer than that. The whole Nolan Chart thing, whilst it does have a little merit, is just to simple to convey the wondrous multiplicity of human thought that feeds into ideology. No-one, truly, in their hearts, is a straight-up socialist, libertarian, conservative or whatever. We are all influenced by a maelstrom of competing influences that swirls around the sea that makes up our own political point of view. Even if the political compass wasn't biased, and actually had some more searching questions, it still, ultimately, would be no more than an amusing little exercise which shows some correlation with your own thoughts and predjudices. This is why, in my view, a lot of political analysis is fundamentally flawed. We humans are not 'rational' beings who carefully way up the merits and demerits of every possible political position and then feed this back into some giant calculating machine which then produces a nice little label for us to stick upon our breast. We are closer to the, admittedly flowery, description that I posted above.

Obama is clearly to Cameron's left, if we simply talk about his 'goals', and, more importantly, the way he seems to see the world. Now, as much as I dislike the man, Cameron is no left-winger, he is clearly cut from the cloth of the right. Obama is cut from that of the left, as his pronouncements on taxes, economics, social-policy and the environment indicate (though again, here we fall victim to the ever-present threat of boxing). There is no more to say, sir.

[Хahar 🤔]

"from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is a fundamentally good idea. Agree

This doesn't seem right; he's not a communist.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I could spend all day if I had time highlighting various absurdities of the Political Compass charts even in only a relative sense, but here's one: It puts Newt Gingrich as economically similar to Ron Paul. The guy who proposed reinstating Glass-Steagall, and most certainly doesn't favor abolishing Social Security and Medicare. Newt Gingrich obviously belongs pretty far right economically, but having any candidate insignificantly different from Paul is absurd.

Rocky Anderson is pretty close to where John McCain 2008 is economically.

Barack Obama in 2012 is actually slightly to the right and more authoritarian than both John McCain and Rudy Giuliani in 2008. It's one thing to argue Obama moved to the right, it's another to argue his 2012 campaign is essentially equivalent to that of his 2008 opponent's.

Please note the chasm between the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives in the 2010 chart. The parties that later went to be coalition partners. It's also pretty obvious which party the makers of the PC supported in 2010, though I doubt they do now of course.

And perhaps the most absurd as Al has pointed out before and commented that whoever made that must've been drunk, they have Labour in 1982, when the party had a significant Trotskyist faction, as to the right of Labour in 1972.

[Lurker]

"Constrained by political reality" does not equal "lie about ideology".

Sweden is often considered (generally correctly) to have one the most left-wing rights in Europe. Our current financial minister is semi-famous in Sweden for once having stated his support for a society where everyone can just do what they want. Our prime minister at an earlier stage in his career claimed that the welfare state had made our population lazy and indolent.

Anyone who thinks that that party is to the left of the Democrats has something of a deficiency in how they view political parties.

He said way "worse" stuff than that though? Thought this quote was hilarious when I first saw it:

 "Han dog precis som en lång rad andra unga människor började göra den sommaren i vad som snart skulle komma att kallas 2000-talets farligaste och dödligaste epidemi. Fullt jämförbar med pest, smittkoppor eller AIDS. Han dog välfärdsdöden."