No wonder I've never considered running for president (well, besides the little rule about having to be born in the US). Per Corpus Callosum, we see that the candidates for president, especially the ones who are well funded and likely to win a primary or two are all really Republicans, and the Republicans are really fascists/authoritarians by another name.
So I wonder who is against the Drug War? Probably Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich only. I'll admit I actually haven't been paying attention to the platforms of specific candidates, other than in a vague way. Data like this is probably why - none of them are talking to me anyway. (Especially Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, based on this chart. John Edwards is the most left of the likely candidates, but something irks me about him too. )
Data from here.
My score? Took the test, and in no surprise to anyone who regularly glances at this page, I scored way, way to the left. Live and Let Live. Or as the Gnostic Christ said: “If you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you.”
The Political Compass - Test:
Economic Left/Right: -7.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.31
About The Political Compass™In the introduction, we explained the inadequacies of the traditional left-right line.
If we recognize that this is essentially an economic line it's fine, as far as it goes. We can show, for example, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot, with their commitment to a totally controlled economy, on the hard left. Socialists like Mahatma Gandhi and Robert Mugabe would occupy a less extreme leftist position. Margaret Thatcher would be well over to the right, but further right still would be someone like that ultimate free marketeer, General Pinochet.
That deals with economics, but the social dimension is also important in politics. That's the one that the mere left-right scale doesn't adequately address. So we've added one, ranging in positions from extreme authoritarian to extreme libertarian.
Yay, Economically Moderate Libertarian.. Economic Left/Right: -2.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.41
Nice test, but some of the questions seemed a bit biased... (Not that I didn't score where I though I would, but still...)
"Taxpayers should not be expected to prop up any theatres or museums that cannot survive on a commercial basis." - Leaves no room for charity. It's either for profit or state funded.
"No broadcasting institution, however independent its content, should receive public funding." - Define "public funding", is that taxpayer funding or asking for donations (Pledge Drives?)
"Those with the ability to pay should have the right to higher standards of medical care ." - Does not allow for the fact that those with more money will have beter access to health care regardless the system.. (If you say, have enough to hire your own private doctor...) A better question, IMO, is to ask whether everyone should be able to recieve quality medical care regardless of their means.
I also noticed that none of the taxpayer related questions differentiated between local and national taxes, or brought up any questions about large government waste. (Versus local actions which typically have lower overhead and more direct voter interaction/oversight..)
Most importantly, however, it does not allow for the fact that some of the more questionable "left" leaning economic policies are authoritarian in nature...(i.e. when the taxing of ones labor is used to directly fund that which the person despises...)
Anyway, just my two cents, Chris
P.S., How the heck did Ron Paul end up on the "Authoritarian" half of the grid?????? That's insane.