How have your politics changed over the years?

[Rapscallion]

Hmm, Economic -7.38 and Social -3.69

I'd have put myself centre-left, with a deep-rooted cynicism about politics.

Rapscallion

[NecCat]

I've never seen that test before, it's interesting.
I got -6.75 economic and -4.10 social.

I'd have guessed I would get further left and further libertarian, but that may only be compared to the people I know - my riding has been 20 years liberal vs. 45 years conservative since 1949 federally, and conservative since it's inception provincially. My family is even much more conservative than most of my friends and coworkers.

[Gravekeeper]

I took it again, and, again I'm in No Man's Land with this score

http://www.politicalcompass.org/prin...3.12&soc=-2.10

That's actually kind of interesting. Economically right but bending Libertarian is sort of what the GOP claims to be. But you actually are.

I'm here: http://www.politicalcompass.org/prin...7.75&soc=-7.28 >.>

Economic Left/Right: -7.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.28

There's a few in the same quadrant as me at least. But no one in the same corner.

I can wave to Kabe though.

[s_stabeler]

I can't remember exactly where i was, but I'm slightly left/slightly libertarian. Which explains my dislike for most of the main parties in the UK, as they're all right/authoritarian. (Lib Dems are closest that actually stand a chance of getting in government, Greens are closest)

[Password]

I'm rather similar according to the political compass, i.e. libertarian/left. I've always been comfortable with personal freedoms that don't have a direct impact on others (also on the final two pages I tended to be strongly for/against, which wasn't true for the first four).

I've appeared somewhere similar on that before, so not really changing much over the years. The one issue that I really have changed my opinion on is that I'm increasingly republican (small r) to the point that next year I'd be very unlikely to vote for a party that isn't.

I'm also more interested in the two houses at least in part being more representative of the electorate. Though I'd never vote for either of them and am quite happy to see one disappearing from view in recent years there is something wrong with a system where the parties finishing 4th and 5th in the popular vote fail to gain any seats, yet 6th to 11th* and 14th all get something.

*The explanation for this is due to the fact that of the parties in 6th to 11th only one of them is actually a national party, the others are all regional with candidates in less than 10% of the seats.

[crashhelmet]

Don't know if my views have really changed this much or if it's just the questions asked.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/face...6.62&soc=-2.10

Interesting, none the less.

[victory sabre]

That's actually kind of interesting. Economically right but bending Libertarian is sort of what the GOP claims to be. But you actually are.

That's why I was attracted to them when I was younger, but moved away from them when they didn't do what the claimed they would do. I've also moved more libertarian over the years, but not much.

[Hyena Dandy]

Thats what the rest of us just call liberal, heh ;p

Well, not really. Classical Liberalism is very much a Libertarian philosophy. In fact, Classical Liberalism in a way could be seen as opposing and making 'less liberal' a lot of previous aspects of society before it arose. It's a quite individualistic view. People are people, and will act in their own personal best interest. You can't and shouldn't ask them to act in the interest of others, and the only way to get people who don't have capital to work

So, no, that's not what 'the rest of us' calls liberal. The term "Classical liberal" is used for a reason. To contrast it to the sort of things that would be considered liberal today, like a strong social support system.

[TheHuckster]

I took the test, and I find myself in "Nowhere Land, " as well.

The Political Compass is a good tool, although I see some flaws with it when trying to compare where one lies with another. There are also some problems with questions when it comes to context.

"The rich are too highly taxed" is very contextual, as the rich are taxed very differently in various nations. If I lived in an extremely socialist country where some people are being taxed 90% of their income, I would respond differently than if I lived in the US where there are some fat cats who, thanks primarily to loopholes, are taxed next to nothing. Therefore, you're going to have a paradoxical effect where some people who live in socialist countries might actually be seen to lean to the "right" on this question, while others who live in less socialist countries might lean to the "left," yet might still actually be on opposite sides to eachother.

Same could be said for "Our civil liberties are being excessively curbed in the name of counter-terrorism" If the US repealed a lot of the laws from the Patriot Act and other 9/11-related laws, then suddenly people's answers will change, and their "dot" will be skewed to the right or left when it really shouldn't move at all, because their core viewpoint on whether civil liberties should be compromised in the name of security, which is what it should really be asking.

"It is important that my child's school instills religious values." could mean one of two things if they agree: Either they "agree" meaning they think all schools, private and public, should instill religious values, which is a very authoritarian viewpoint, or they "agree" meaning they think parents should have a choice between sending them to a secular public school or a private religious school, which is more of a libertarian viewpoint. I personally answered "Agree" to this, meaning the latter, but I am unsure if the algorithm mistakenly thought I meant all schools should be theocratic.

[Panacea]

And as you can see from the chart when you do it, there's no one in my area, at all. It's no wonder why I feel so politically alienated, and frustrated with it all. Oh, well, it feels liberating to march to the beat of my own drummer, in a way.

Don't feel bad. You're clearly not the only one.

Maybe this is why our political leaders can't connect with the public anymore. They all seem to be clustered in the upper right corner. I laughed when I saw how close Obama and Romney were on the graph.

They're still clinging to old paradigms while the rest of the world has moved on.

That's actually kind of interesting. Economically right but bending Libertarian is sort of what the GOP claims to be. But you actually are.

I'm here: http://www.politicalcompass.org/prin...7.75&soc=-7.28 >.>

Economic Left/Right: -7.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.28

There's a few in the same quadrant as me at least. But no one in the same corner.

I can wave to Kabe though.

You can wave to me, too. We're not that far apart: http://www.politicalcompass.org/prin...5.00&soc=-6.05

Which was a surprise. I thought I'd more to the right on the fiscal side. I guess I've mellowed

[Gravekeeper]

Well, not really. Classical Liberalism is very much a Libertarian philosophy.

Hmm, yes. I stand corrected. Canada's type and history of liberalism got me. Though the chief difference seems to be more of an economic one. Its neo-classical liberalism that off shot and evolved into Libertarianism.

Canada's Libertarian party is pretty strict hardcore old school Libertarian. Luckily, no one really likes them as a result. -.-

So, no, that's not what 'the rest of us' calls liberal. The term "Classical liberal" is used for a reason. To contrast it to the sort of things that would be considered liberal today, like a strong social support system.

Social Liberalism. Of which Canada is is historically a bastion of and of which I have trouble understanding the opposition to in the US sometimes. But that's a different beast from Liberalism vs Classical Liberalism.

All of Canada's major parties are social liberals to some degree as its a cornerstone of our entire country. Its one of the reasons the US looks so weird. >.>

[Panacea]

All of Canada's major parties are social liberals to some degree as its a cornerstone of our entire country. Its one of the reasons the US looks so weird. >.>

Honestly, I think it has to do with the American myth of the rugged individualist. We celebrate this myth (Daniel Boone, Davy Crockett) to the nth degree, forgetting that it was cooperation that actually allowed us to conquer new territories and build this country, and that our ancestors had a long tradition of social responsibility towards the weaker members of society. That tradition didn't fade until the Industrial Revolution when corporatists realized they could replace slavery with wage slavery. Free societies out compete slavery every time, which is why the South was always doomed.

The robber barons quickly realized how they could play people clinging to these traditions off the social liberals of the day and get them to vote against their own self interest as they built their monopolies. The current Wall Street mentality is the successor of the Robber Barons of the 19th century, and as French economist Thomas Pickety tells us, the mid 20th century was an abnormal period in history where the middle class really was able to get ahead. Now the pendulum is swinging back to where it was.

And our own twisted mythology is telling us this is OK. We bury our heads in the sands and ignore the real problems in order to hang onto this myth that we are the captains of our own destinies, but we are no longer.

[wolfie]

Also in 1990 President Bush decided to break his cardinal pledge to not raise taxes.

Actually, he didn't make that pledge - people misinterpreted him as making it. I believe the quote was "Read my lips: know new taxes" - he was actually pledging to raise taxes, and he kept that pledge.

As a Canadian, I'd probably support the Marijuana Party. After all, unlike the major parties, nobody's going to look at their platform and wonder "WTF were those guys smoking?" - we already KNOW what they're smoking. Some of the major parties look like they fall somewhere between Crack and Meth.

[TheHuckster]

The robber barons quickly realized how they could play people clinging to these traditions off the social liberals of the day and get them to vote against their own self interest as they built their monopolies. The current Wall Street mentality is the successor of the Robber Barons of the 19th century, and as French economist Thomas Pickety tells us, the mid 20th century was an abnormal period in history where the middle class really was able to get ahead. Now the pendulum is swinging back to where it was.

The big thing to get from this is the monopolies we have now are greatly endorsed by the government through conceding to their lobbies and gaining control over congressional decisions in their favor. This has always been true to some extent over the course of American history, but it's gotten to extreme points in the last 20-30 years.

I guarantee you if we abolish the lobby/contribution system we have today and abolish the million tax/regulation loopholes that were passed thanks to those lobbies while keeping the free-market system with reasonable welfare programs as it was meant to work, we'd be in a much better economic and democratic system than we are now.

And our own twisted mythology is telling us this is OK. We bury our heads in the sands and ignore the real problems in order to hang onto this myth that we are the captains of our own destinies, but we are no longer.

What is your proposed solution to this problem? Because history has also shown that when people begin to give government too much power over individuals' destinies, life still is very crappy, but just in a different way.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Here's the thing though: you can't reform American democracy by exclusively focusing on what you can stop. That's sort of the problem with the American voting public. They create the BS they consume and then blame the government for it. The reason lobbying is ultimately successful is they are able to line the pockets of existing Congressmen because the American public will not vote against party. That's not money, it's prejudice. Most elections swing on a small number of seats that flip because those districts aren't completely gerrymandered. If I'm a bank? I give money to every incumbent not in one of those seats. Those people can swing the party but as angry as they may be they're not going to outvote the safe seats I gave my money to.

Take a 13% Congressional approval rating. What would fix it very quickly is voting against party and against incumbency for... oh I don't know, 2 to 3 election cycles. That's it. If American grassroots politics still existed amongst the broader public (it exists an an exceedingly small minority of specifically interested groups like the Tea Party, social justice types, pro-lifers etc.) you would fix it. Mainly because you can tell people what you believe until you're blue in the face but if you consistently produce nothing except gridlock and soundbites, really you're a failure at your job.

It is not a "corporate" thing. It's the fact that voters are failing to do their job. And companies get paid a lot of money to not be idiots. People talk in terms of radical change in this country when all they have to do is coordinate voting out toxic members of congress. It SHOULDN'T actually be that hard. We make it hard because we are risk averse and we fail to engage the political process in a substantive way.