Bryan Palmer has designed a politics quiz which actually asks questions appropriate to Australians. I’m not massively surprised by my results:
Political outlook
Your broad political orientation score is -65.4%, which equates to a ‘Left’ position
Economic policy
Your economic policy score score is -62.2%. This equates to a ‘Left’ position
Social policy
Your social policy score is -46%. This equates to a ‘Left’ position
Traditional values
Your traditional values score is -100%. This equates to a ‘Far Left’ position
As Ken Parish, who’s chuffed to find himself a centrist, observes, the equation of ideological positions to party loyalty is quite problematic, though that’s recognised in the explanatory blurb at the end of the test. It would be interesting to ponder whether John Howard would come out as a Liberal supporter and Kevin Rudd as Labor… As Ken points out, economic liberals end up as right wing, and social liberals as left (on the economic and “trad values” axes respectively). Anyway, it’s a beta version so I’m sure feedback will be useful in refining it.
Libertarians in Ken’s comments thread point out that the test wasn’t really designed for them, but then, neither was the highly statist Australian political culture.
Elsewhere: David Tiley has an interesting take. More critique from Jason at Catallaxy.
You failed the tests
Straight D’s except for an F.
How does Catallaxy make out?
Here’s Jason:
http://www.ozpolitics.info/blog/index.php?page_id=206&id=6cb31b670e8297d5d09f0bca1a9f1d4c
Please note, though, Birdy, Hivemind aside, I’m sure other LP bloggers would get different scores to me. I wasn’t being terribly creative with my choice of a nick, and I should observe that I’m only answering on my own behalf.
Wow, I’m a centrist all the way!
Mine – but how do you answer statements like “Marijuana should be sold in licensed establishments” when you believe it should be sold, but not need a license? Plenty of examples of this sort of thing in there. If I disagreed with the statement I would be counted as opposing marijuana legalization, rather than opposing the licensing.
The libertarians on Ken’s thread are right.
That’s the problem with all those tests, I think, Andrew. They binarise positions too much and don’t register why someone might agree or disagree.
The Marriage one was the really bad example of this. Most libertarians would prefer that the government wasn’t concerned with marriage at all, so the question “Should the government sanction marriages or civil unions between Homosexual couples” is going to get a no answer. Answer no and the test assumes you are anti-gay.
The only thing you can really do is give a middle-of-the-road answer to those types of questions, but then you just end up with a middle of the road score which isn’t really accurate.
The question “The freer the market, the freer the society” proved vexing, since on a scale encompassing all of the societies in the world, I would agree, but on a scale restricted to industrialised countries, I am disinclined to say there is a difference.
I am far left. I think that means that I have become more left wing (except in economics).
Dammit!
There’s no “It’s not as simple as that” option on any of the questions…
Your broad political orientation score is -74%, which equates to a ‘Far Left’ position
Your economic policy score score is -71.4%. This equates to a ‘Left’ position
Your social policy score is -62.1%. This equates to a ‘Left’ position
Your traditional values score is -97.1%. This equates to a ‘Far Left’ position
at the risk of igniting the abortion debate, there are lots of peculiar ones like the ones Yobbo pointed out.
For instance I answered ‘yes’ to abortion is murder but that doesn’t mean I want to ban it. Yes, abortion is murder but if a woman wants to expel an unwanted guest from her womb, and you can figure out a way to do that without killing it, good luck.
Oh, and trackback
http://catallaxyfiles.com/?p=2446
Political Outlook -71.6 % (Far Left)
Economic -71.1% (Left)
Social -40.7% (Centre Left)
Traditional Values -76.6% (Far Left)
And I regard myself as a small-l liberal, small-c conservative centrist!
Just shows how far the accepted norms have moved to the right in the last three decades, doesn’t it?
Major probs with Bryan’s quiz at the moment:
1. Does ‘left vs right’ actually mean that much? There are huge assumptions being made about which points of view tend to bundle together, and there is no catering for people who don’t bundle them.
The political compass is an alternative questionnaire which admits this problem, and locates you using TWO coordinates. They define ‘left’ vs. ‘right’ as meaning ’state controlled economy’ vs ‘free market’, and have a separate libertarian-totalitarian axis for ‘free individuals’ vs ’state control of society’. This allows important additional distinctions to be made.
Possibly, even this fails to go far enough. Another pair of terms that often get bandied around are ‘radical’ (and/or ‘progressive’: these are not the same) opposed to ‘conservative’, and these are not captured by the compass. But of course, these terms may actually be useless in a world where ‘conservative’ gets used regularly in the media to mean ‘radical regressive’ (the best description in such terms for both Howard and Bush).
2. As mentioned by others, the bundling makes it impossible for some people to answer questions satisfactorily.
The question about gun ownership presumably equates ‘easy gun ownership’ with ‘right’. How would an armed Maoist revolutionary answer this? Do we have anyone prepared to give us an idea?
The question about English skills of migrants AND refugees is unfair. I do expect at least basic English skills in voluntary migrants, but have no such expectations for refugees.
3. I am pretty sure that final scores all come out a bit too negative. Or maybe Bryan is setting the ‘centre’ far too far to the right. Or maybe the world has gone far-right and I’m just an out-of-touch old fogey…
Something that is really interesting, though, is the incredibly low apparent match between ALP voters’ attitudes and Bryan’s supposed ALP stances. I suspect that there is an element of truth to this, after years of Prolix Windbag’s trying to be a righter-than-Howard small-target-who-won’t-scare-the-rednecks, while the tribes of the screwed-by-Howard keep trying to vote for the most credible non-Rodentist.
There is maybe a message that the ALP could try re-engaging with its voters, rather than constantly pressuring them into joining the Greens. We watch Kruddy’s policy developments with bated breath, although I note that anyone who rates Universites’ research outcomes by patents rather than impact-weighted publications does not have his/her head entirely screwed on…
it should be “voted for” in the choice of political party not “represent”. I voted for one party, to get rid of another, but they do not ‘represent’ me
Surely they could’ve had a bit more on environmental policy? Isn’t that one of the defining features of a Greens voter?
Could it be because environment is a cross-cutting issue, because they under-represented it (as is still so often the case) or maybe because it is increasingly an issue on which left and right aren’t so easy to divide – assuming, as andy says, that we accept those labels as meaningful. I sure hated having to put social welfare up against the environment, though…
I think the two field model outlined would have to be more meaningful, especially given that I got in excess of -90% for nearly all fields, except economic policy, in which I scored -59%.
Political outlook
Your broad political orientation score is -54.8%, which equates to a ‘Left’ position
Economic policy
Your economic policy score score is -17.1%. This equates to a ‘Centre Left’ position
Social policy
Your social policy score is -58.6%. This equates to a ‘Left’ position
Traditional values
Your traditional values score is -92.8%. This equates to a ‘Far Left’ position
The methodology is a disgrace. Many questions, as Mr Yob has pointed out, corral the respondent into a position which is not in reality even close to the one they hold. Take question 18 that asks if marijuana should be sold in licenced premises (Amsterdam model). There are many other positions on this issue: decriminalisation, decriminalisation up to certain amounts, complete legalisation of sale, tacit non-pursuit of marijuana users (a tactical decision to use police resources more wisely) without changing a thing… etc etc.
A far better model is to ask explicit questions about one’s ideological position to see if one is a genuine [insert ideological model], like Bill O’Reilly does on the Fox website: “Are you a cultural warrior?”. If you don’t meet the grade as a cultural warrior you are a “secular progressive” (a pejorative notion in Bill’s mind). See http://www.billoreilly.com/quiz?action=viewQuiz&quizID=134&destinationpage=/pg/jsp/community/cwtest.jsp
I just did the test and came out (pardon the pun) as a central lefty which is strange because I identify (not agree) much more with right leaning bloggers than left leaning bloggers.
Have you noticed that if you choose one of the “undecided” options for every answer you come out as …. a centrist!?
Is this because cautious, judicious, independent thought inevitably proves the superiority of a centrist (read: “measured”, “balanced”) political position? Or is it because the powers represented by (and circulating through) “the Left” and “the Right” positions are judged sufficiently commensurate that the apathetic and the feeble-minded will end up swinging in each direction an equal, hence counteractive number of times?
“Surely they could’ve had a bit more on environmental policy? Isn’t that one of the defining features of a Greens voter?”
Not any more, no. The Greens are a general progressive left party.
Your broad political orientation score is -1.8%, which equates to a ‘Centre’ position
Your economic policy score score is 1%. This equates to a ‘Centre’ position
Your social policy score is -6.7%. This equates to a ‘Centre’ position
Your traditional values score is -27.3%. This equates to a ‘Centre Left’ position
Sounds about right although it is disturbing to find that the party that best reflects the centre-centre-left view is ONP. We need a centrist party that isn’t about kicking heads and taking names.
So they’ll be rebranding themselves as the G-Progs soon?
No doubt the Greens have developed a much broader focus in the last decade or so, but surely environmental issues are still central to many members and voters… If they just called themselves “progressive left” or something, I doubt they’d be getting 9% of the vote.
Agreed, curtist – andy’s linked test provides a much more interesting result.
It makes me economically left, socially libertarian. Snugly wedged between the Dalai Lama and Mandela, directly opposite GWB and Howard. I’m comfortable with that.
Thats the most unacceptable combination FDB.
Like you want to destroy all aspects of the culture and then have the thieves take over everything and be bullshitting just how charitable they are.
You ought to keep these ugly psychopathic tendencies a secret when they surface FDB.
“Not any more, no. The Greens are a general progressive left party.”
That’s a silly thing to say, Monsieur à Gauche. I know you like ‘em, and so do I, and yes they have a far better raft of policy than anyone gives them credit for, but the defining features are environmental.
And until they have a serious shot at forming government, so they should remain.
My broad political orientation score is -81.1%, which equates to a ‘Far Left’ position.
My economic policy score score is -68.8%. This equates to a ‘Left’ position.
My social policy score is -91.9%. This equates to a ‘Far Left’ position.
My traditional values score is -88.5%. This equates to a ‘Far Left’ position.
And on Political Compass I find myself in the same quadrant as FDB and Nelson Mandela.
Perhaps Birdy is right about me after all.
I’ll briefly break my new years’ resolution not to engage with you Graeme, just to say that I couldn’t have hoped for a more validating assessment of my political alignment than your disapproval.
Thanks.
So I’m still the only one with the perfect non-traditional values score?
I think you have to loosen up a bit with these tests and go with the flow. So when they were presenting me with unpalatable options, I looked at how they were trying to divide answers between left and right and went with their expectation rather than agonise over the strict wording.
That might explain why I’m unequivocally far left:
Political outlook – -81 (’Far Left’)
Economic policy – -79 (’Far Left’)
Social policy – -84 (’Far Left’)
Traditional values – -86 (’Far Left’)
I’m kinda happy with that.
I identified the Greens as matching my views (although I’ve never voted for them) and got a 97% match. The Dem match was 86%, the ALP 75% and the Libs 22%.
None of that surprises me so I reckon the test is not so bad, given the limitations of these things.
Libertarians should not be surprised that they have trouble relating to all this. It is in the nature of their position IMHO.
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -6.63
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.44
It seems that I’m squatting on a block just a little south of my good friend Nelson and a little west of my mate DL. I think I might even be next-door to FDB…
Political outlook
Your broad political orientation score is -76.4%, which equates to a ‘Far Left’ position
Economic policy
Your economic policy score score is -53.9%. This equates to a ‘Left’ position
Social policy
Your social policy score is -76.1%. This equates to a ‘Far Left’ position
Traditional values
Your traditional values score is -91.9%. This equates to a ‘Far Left’ position
You can see Political Compass results for Oz bloggers here.
All out of carrots I’m afraid, Cap’n me neighbour.
I’ve got:
political outlook -54.8% ‘left’
economic policy -31.9% ‘centre left’
social policy -42.8% ‘centre left’
traditional values -71.3% ‘left’.
Guess there’s a reason why I like LP…
It would be interesting to see how you lefties do on this short 10 question libertarian quiz. For reference, I got 9 on both the economic and social freedom index.
http://www.ldp.org.au/quiz/index.html
Your broad political orientation score is -9.3%, which equates to a ‘Centre’ position
Your economic policy score score is 7.6%. This equates to a ‘Centre’ position
Your social policy score is 14.7%. This equates to a ‘Centre Right’ position
Your traditional values score is -51.2%. This equates to a ‘Left’ position
They say I’m a Liberal Voter. Thought I would have been Democrats or Labor – though Democrats have gone more left over they years, haven’t they?
I always suspected that the terms right/ left etc have kind of lost their meaning these days. Or perhaps, the frame of reference has markedly shifted to the right.
To test this hypothesis I did the quiz on behalf of my fellow peer Sir Robert Menzies. His views are fairly well known, and certainly the then Liberal Party policies, are verifiable and may be taken as an extension of his views, more or less.
Sir Robert scores One Nation 70.8% on party preference, with Greens coming 53.5% second (is there some bizarre inconsistency here or was Paddy McG right, that 1Nat were agrarian socialists with a fascist bent?); AD/Fam First neck and neck 3rd, then ALP, then nationals with Liberal dead last.
Ming’s political outlook is centrist; his economic policy falls into the centre left to centre grey area; social policy centre to centre-left, and traditional values as centre right.
A note on my methodology: where Sir Robert’s views are unknowable (i.e. issues may not have existed) I put value as neutral or a close guess. I did the test as honestly and fairly as I could. But, hey, anyone can try to disprove or verify my results.
It just goes to show how far John Howard has moved to the extreme right from the founder of his party.
For chrissakes, not more of this nostalgia over bloody Menzies. Menzies was NOT a liberal, he was a try-hard young fogie fascist anglophile, Colonel-Blimp arse-licker. He tried to ban the Communist party, he was pro-conscription, he supported a racist immigration policy. And to add to all that he was an unashamed Keynesian and socialist. Both Paul Keating and John Howard are streets ahead of him in liberalism.
The LDP has a shorter test which will plot you on an xy axis alongside Australian political parties. Try it here.
And he also got us involved in the Vietnam War, and presided over the admission of a goodly number of unrepentant ex-Nazis. Not sure I’d call him a fascist or a socialist though.
I was being intentionally hyperbolic but an agrarian socialist is still a socialist.
I’m tempted to say, my point precisely, Jason Soon, Liberalism Australian-style is superpower arse-licking quasi-fascism. Put I won’t because it will take me away from dealing with your comment mano a mano. What is with you catallaxians and straw man arguments? You are coming the raw prawn here, as everyone else can see. i am not going to rise to the occasion and defend Menzies.
Point two, by the time he set up the Liberal Party in 1949, and that is the main issue here, not the Menzies the fascist admirer of the 1930s. If he took that quasi-fascist stance to the electorate in 1949 he would have been murdered in the polls.
As an aside: Menzies’ anti-communist stance was not all that far removed from George Orwell’s, post-WW2.
Menzies was definitely not a socialist but Ben Chifley, Doc Evatt and Arthur Calwell definitely were. The main issue of Menzies’ coming to power was a socialist policy to nationalise the banks by the ALP, which Menzies opposed, and likewise, his notion was to liberlaise the wartime restrictions, such as rationing. There is nothing socialist about that.
Incidentally, why should Menzies be ashamed of being a Keynsian? It worked for Auastralia at the time. Again, Keynsianism does not equate with socialism.
If Menzies was racist, Immigration minister Arthur “Two Wongs do not make White” Calwell was doubly so. In any case, they were men of their time, so it is not a fair accusation. Beacons of socialism, Jack London and Henry Lawson were racist to their boostraps, as were Australia’s founding fathers and ditto the ALP’s and the union movement’s as well.
Menzies instituted conscription because he was told by his masters in Washington to set it up – like did that socialist hero Little Digger Highes with masters in London – so there would be a flow of gun fodder for Vietnam. Menzies of course lied about both conscription and about the vetnam war beforehand.
My main point was that “Liberalism” such as it was under Mezies has moved to the far reaches of the right under Howard.
If you want to make the additional point that Liberalism in Australia is a sham, I am not going to stop you.
Everyone knows Jason bears the mark of Keynes anyway!
Well, that was quite fun, although being an Australian Democrats fan was news to me. Tee hee.
I’m a centre-left to centre person, while I am most left on traditional values and moving to the centre-right on social policy.
And furthermore…
Taking the sustainability imperative seriously has major implications for a political party’s philosophy, policies and priorities. Exactly how it meshes with more traditional concerns such as economic prosperity, social justice, democracy, freedom, etc., is still a work in progress, but a party which had some approximation of the Green’s social and economic policies without the central focus on sustainability would not be a Green party. It would be just another party of the traditional left. Without giving too much away, for quite some time there has been a desire in some quarters that this is what the Greens should become, and a view that the Greens are “right wing” if we don’t wish to “develop” in that direction.
Amazing what supposedly educated people come up with. Menzies was never an agrarian socialist, he was a political pragmatist who had to accommodate the Country Party, who pushed a special pleading agenda for their own constituency. He had no choice, he had to cop it sweet. That is no evidence for his own views.
Further, that Country Party was an agrarian socialist construct is a myth propagated by revisionist economic historians like PP McGuinness.
This all begs the question: what’s the current “National party” for?
OK
Your economic freedom index is 2.5, and your social freedom index is 7.5.
“Your economic freedom index is 2.5, and your social freedom index is 7.5.”
Me too!
“Your economic freedom index is 4.5, and your social freedom index is 6.”
LDP quiz:
Economic – 3.5
Social – 8
I still think the desire to label something as left or right is more about tribalism and an easy unthinking way of deciding whether or not you agree with something, thus avoiding the effort of having to actually consider what people are saying (and also avoiding the potential discomfort that a person from the ‘wrong side’ might actually have a valid point)
However, if it makes the survey designer feel better, the survey assesses that my party preference is Democrat, with a nicely balanced economically centrist position.
I should assure Darlene that this is not a totally awful place to be – besides, just because you’re philosophically a Democrat doesn’t mean you have to be a fan of the Democrats (and probably vice versa). Just read it as democrat instead of Democrat and it doesn’t feel so bad.
Gee, until I did that first test I had no idea there was such a political formation as the Party Party.
But I don’t think much of it. It should be multiple choice like real life.
Or like the LDP one where I scored 6.5 on the money and 7.5 on the flesh.
Menzies was a man of his time, which was 50 years ago FFS. It is absurd to judge him by today’s ephemeral political fashions, and today’s gone issues, as to whether he was a true liberal or a true conservative.
“a true liberal or a true conservative”
More like a patrician pragmatist, pissed off at not getting to shine as war leader and with one eye increasingly cocked on retirement near the Cinque Ports golf clubs.
4.5 then 6.5. Somehwere near the Dems according to the results. Which doesn’t worry me.
Well it’s interesting that no one has matched my social freedom index of 9 (since this is an area where I’d have expected lefties to align with libertarians) – though Cristy comes close with 8.5. This index would correspond to the traditional values score on the Palmer quiz (except there you have a negative sign). I wonder how Mark and Kim would do on it?
“Well it’s interesting that no one has matched my social freedom index of 9″
Clearly you haven’t thought through the implications of completely unregulated ‘Final Exit’ euthanasia booths eg: hygiene and cleaning issues: “Hmm, smells a bit manky in here. Not sure I wanna go out in this kinda ambience” and design standards: “”Oh shit! The door’s locked! The countdown has started! I can’t find the overide button! I only came in for a piss!”
By the way folks, there’s a good Australian Open slugfest on the box right now.
Hey Sublime Cowgirl, poligothize Ming why dontcha? Those eyebrows should be a good starting point.
And Nadal really lost it on service percentages, always a significant factor in playing on the Rod Laver Arena\’s very fast surface designed for maximum entertainment. Not to mention Gonzo was in the zone.
If he keeps that up to meet Federer in the final, it should be one great punchup.
Also it\’ll be interesting when Jim Courier finally comes out in public.
Economic Freedom 3, Social Freedom 7.
Very close to Alex, Mr Lefty and FDB.
Let’s have a Party!
Again, I could quibble – as in the sex question – I think there should be some regulation of prostitution to ensure that the workers are protected.
But it pinged me exactly on the borderline between “democratic socialist” and “liberal democrat” which is about right (except I prefer “social democrat”)…
Centre left all the way except social policy where I rate a straight centre position.
Well, I got a 98.7% match with the Greens. Guess that means I should stop postponing my threat to join up and feel awkward at meetings.
broad political orientation score is -79.7%
economic policy score score is -60.9%.
social policy score is -76.8%
traditional values score is -92.8% (I win!)
Oh, and economic freedom index 3; social freedom index 8.
On this one I seem to be slightly south-east of the Greens. Or something.
Nope, Lefty E, I’m -100% on trad values.
I appear to have done the Nietzschean transmutation of values completement!
“as in the sex question – I think there should be some regulation of prostitution to ensure that the workers are protected.”
Sorta the kind of point I was trying to make amid my skittish ‘Final Exit’ booth skit above.
Humans should be completely free to do what they want with their bodies but when it involves sex, drugs, abortion, killing yourself or other fleshy hot buttons, there are always some issues involved that need to be addressed from a public health angle. Infected, damaged or dead people always need to be managed so that the rest of us don’t involuntarily end up the same way.
Well, cripes, aint I a stick in the mud. You want to tear everything down, dont you Bahnisch! you and the other young bucks here at LP!
Me, Im for keeping 7.2% of the hypocrisy and cant. For sentimental reasons, and possible heritage value.
So, vote LE for a sensible, pragmatic program of wholesale social depravity and disorder.
Damn you, Nabakov!
(I can’t stop laughing out loud!)
Your economic freedom index is 5, and your social freedom index is 8.
The biggest problem with this one is the underlying assumptions, first, that social and economic issues are separate to begin with — which is the point made by Nabakov, and more directly by Mark — and, second, that the only way that economic issues can be addressed as social issues is via totalitarian, collectivist government control. There are ways of regulating industry, etc., in ways that do not amount to collective ownership, invariable compulsion, etc.
I don’t see how ‘making no laws with respect to assisted suicide, and euthanasia’ or ‘making no laws with respect to sex’ or drugs means that public health issues aren’t dealt with. This is a complete non-sequitur.
There are general laws on littering, dumping waste and maintaining a clean establishment and these should just cover all public establishments generally regardless of what services they offer. You are simply reading too much into the quiz question to infer that it is saying brothels, drug dens etc would be exempt from laws that apply to all other establishments.
Jason, you don’t think there should be a law saying you have to get at least *some* kind of counselling or medical/psychiatric assessment prior to getting in the suicide booth?
Yeah I think this is where I lost my social freedom points. I don’t agree there should be no laws with regard assisted suicide. Seemed a triffle extreme.
Everybody! I fucked John Lennon!
Jenny, I really hope that news is more than 27 years old…
Hee hee. Sorry, Jenny, that was me. Amazing what effect a pair of lifts and a Nehru jacket had on short-sighted chicks back in those days.
Contracts with the mentally disturbed or incompetent may be rendered null and void. It may even expose the company to a lawsuit. This is a contractual issue regardless of the service being provided.
Yes, but the contracting party, being dead, wouldn’t have much effective remedy!
Ah yes, the libertarian recourse to contract law and civil courts rears its silvertailed head and peers over its reading glasses at us once again.
Jason, some people can’t afford to sue, and as Mark says, the dead will find it of little comfort knowing that they might be avenged. You gots to get over this obsession with laws=evil. Up the thread, you’re saying that existing sanitation laws will take care of this or that. What’s so hot about them? Why can’t someone just launch a private investigation and law suit when something putrid makes a bunch of people sick? Oh I see. Existing laws that make obvious sense are OK, but new ones are anathema.
You’re wierd, dude.
I was thinking more along the lines of liability for prosecution by authorities for murder, and yes, lawsuits by families creating ex-ante incentives for companies to do the right thing in the first place.
I will also stick by my choice because in the quiz the choice was between
‘the government shall make no laws’ versus ‘legalise only 2 out of 3′ and the first is a lesser evil.
Ah ha:
Your broad political orientation score is -9.1%, which equates to a ‘Centre’ position
Your economic policy score score is 56.9%. This equates to a ‘Right’ position
Your social policy score is 9.8%. This equates to a ‘Centre’ position
Your traditional values score is -85.2%. This equates to a ‘Far Left’ position
It’d be fun to do a more fine-grained quiz – one that allowed more light and shade.
mark says:
Your traditional values score is -100%. This equates to a ‘Far Left’ position
This implies that mark is a complete ideological fashion victim. Didn’t your ancestors impart any traditional wisdom worth heeding?
My results are as follows:
Your broad political orientation score is 10.9%, which equates to a ‘Centre’ position
Economic policy
Your economic policy score score is -12.8%. This equates to a ‘Centre’ position
Social policy
Your social policy score is 33.3%. This equates to a ‘Centre Right’ position
Traditional values
Your traditional values score is 31.6%. This equates to a ‘Centre Right’ position
I think the conclusion – that I am a centrist – is broadly correct. I am left of centre on economics and right of centre on culture. The opposite valencies roughly cancel out.
I disagree with the notion of Right wing and Left wing. These are defined by institutional processes when they should be defined by sociological results.
Defined instituionally we see that the Nazis are both Left wing on economics and Right wing on culture. Whilst the libertarians are Right wing on economics and Left wing on culture.
So this ideological taxonomy does not allow a transitive linear spectrum of classification. I suggest an alternative classification that is both exhaustive and exclusive continuum.
The Left support the low-status: workers, women, indigenes, ethnics, flora and fauna etc
The Right support the high-status: bosses, monarchs, ecclesiasts, generals, whites etc
Yes, Jack, they were Prussians and they taught me that involvement in public affairs and attempting to do good in the world was a duty and one which I could not avoid for selfish reasons of having a quiet and indulgent private life.
Those are worthwhile traditional values.
Some crap about condemning people for choices they make (which is what the test purported to measure) is not.
Who the fuck is Jenny Kee?
Says it all really. Poor people, women, blacks and plants.
Mark on 25 January 2007 at 10:32 pm
Those are worthwhile traditional values.
Glad to hear that Prussian issues are still duty-bound.
Your Prussian honour requires a significant adherence traditional values though the test says that you do not. So the test is a deficient measure of your true ideological valency. I suspected as much.
mark says:
But contemporary fashion, or alien traditions, cause impressionable people to make bad choices. eg infibulation. These bad choices should be condemned and the test is right to winkle out peoples sentiments on these matters.
Anna Winter on 26 January 2007 at 12:18 am
My intention is to make an analytic, not polemic, point. I do not mean to imply that, for instance, women are on the same strata as plants. Clearly there can be more than one strata of under-dogs.
The Left and Right should be defined by sociological ends, not institutional means. This is the key defect of taxonomic testing of this type. And why people always feel that they are misrepresented on them.
Leftists always pride themselves on supporting the under-dog. This has been so since the French Revolution, when the Left supported the bourgeois Republicans, underdogs to the aristocratic Royalists.
The Left has invariably supported underdogs of all types: proles (class), pacifists (state), women (gender), gays (sexual), sectarians (culture), coloureds (race), indigenes (region), animals (exotica), vegetables (biota).
The Right has invariably supported top-dogs of all types: capitalists, militarists, males, straights, establishments, whites, settlers, etc
The Right has invariably supported top-dogs of all types: capitalists, militarists, males, straights, establishments, whites, settlers,
EXPLOITERS,SCUM BAGS,WHITE COLLAR CRIMINALS,BENT POLITICIANS,NAZIS,FACISTS,POLLUTERS,PHONEY WARS,SLAVERY,GAY BASHING,BLACK BASHING, POOR BASHING, BASHING ANYTHING ELSE THAT DONT FIT IN THEIR DECIDED PLACE,But one can see how easy it is to become a rabid right wing prick,cos the older i get, the more i am becoming like one,cos id like to gas the fucking lot of them.
Jack Strocchi
On proles and the Left, tell me, how many proles fled West Germany for the communal bosom of East Germany between 1945 and 1990? Many American proles bang on Moscow’s doors? And tell me, why is that the major impact on proles of left-wing governments is to throw huge numbers of said proles onto the unemployment queue?
Quite obviously those nominally “Left-wing” governments in the Soviet bloc were not Left-wing in my sense which is under-dog supporting. This was immediately appreciated by genuine (underdog supporting) Left wingers such as Russell and Orwell.
Naturally the first thing that Soviet-style Bolshevik parties did when they grabbed power was to murder all the genuine Left-wingers amongst their supporters. “Left-wing” revolutions devour their legitimate children.
It is pretty clear that the Bolsheviks were all about creating all about creating a monopolistic statist economy and dictatorial polity. With party apparatchiks in the top-dog position getting all the high-status power and privilege. This makes the Bolsheviks unambiguously Right-wing.
And, not by accident, the under-dog proles (Solidarity) launched a revolution to overthrow the Warsaw pact states. A true workers uprising in the classic Left-wing sense.
Rooselvelt’s government was Left wing alright, and it overcame the Great Depression.
Lee Harvey Oswald. So there.
Okay, yeah, so keep on counting there, wisenheimer.
Don’t think I don’t know where you’re buried George.