MD The Political Compass

From: Arlo Bensinger (ajb102@psu.edu)
Date: Wed Oct 19 2005 - 17:37:01 BST

  • Next message: Case: "RE: MD Any help"
  • Next message: Ant McWatt: "MD bullshit"

    Hi Erin,

    Well, I took the test. Here's what I scored:

    Economic Left/Right: -5.63
    Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.05

    Which placed me halfways on a diagonal between "left" and "libertarian".

    Let me just say, for clarity, again, that I've never denied a "left-right"
    spectrum in political thought. I deny that this spectrum is either (1)
    fully representative of political thought or (2) polar in the modern
    dichotomy of "conservative v. liberal". BOTH conservatives and liberals
    (mainstream party ideologues) are both a little right of center in the
    larger Left to Right spectrum.

    Which is why, when Platt refers to "liberals" as "leftists" it cracks me
    up. They may be, indeed, slightly more "left" than him, but on the entire
    spectrum, its like New Jerseyians calling Pennsylvania "the wild west".
    Yes, we're west of New Jersey, but there's a whole other continent a'
    lurking out there. The reverse of this holds true as well. Which is why
    I've always called the current "battle" mere distraction. Ask yourself, how
    significantly has your life changed due to politics over your adult life?
    Not very. If we got a real Marxist leader, or a real Fascist leader, we'd
    pretty much be in a whole new world. As it is, nothing ever really changes.
    It's all so much back ground noise to divert attention away from critical
    examinations of power, capital and authority.

    Here's an interesting report from the "conservative" media, the CATO
    Institute. (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3789) This report
    shows how Bush has been, IN REAL DOLLARS, the largest spending president in
    our history, outspending even LBJ (again, in real dollars!). Now, turn on
    the radio and listen to how the "conservatives" warn us that "leftist
    liberals" want to expand the government, to create a government state, and
    how they, the lone rangers of freedom, want to reduce government. Uh huh.
    All speak, all distraction, nothing more.

    While I'm at it, here's a CNNMoney story that traces DOW gains, inflation
    adjusted, every years since 1900. In the years where a R-President presided
    over a R-Congress (what you'd think would be business heaven, if you listen
    to Limbaugh), was that the DOW gained only 1.2 percent. However, in the
    years when a D-President presided over a D-Congress, the average gain was
    HIGHER at 1.8 percent. But, the BIGGEST gains were the years when a
    D-President presided over a R-Congress. There are many interesting things
    to be gleaned from this, but it absolutely denies the ludicrous propaganda
    that "democrats are destroying the economy". And yet, I'm sure that's
    exactly what you'll continue to hear on tonight's Sean Hannity program. But
    I offer this as more proof that both republicans and democrats are pretty
    much the same. The democrats seem to have a more positive effect on the
    DOW, but overall neither are destroying or ballooning the economy.

    Also, as further proof, consider that since 1981, the republicans have
    controlled congress in all but 7 years (overlapping the final years of
    Reagan and Bush I). That's 16 years of republican control. Since 1980 we've
    had 8 years of a democrat president and 17 years of a republican president.
    And what? We still hear about "the liberal agenda"? We are still told that
    "liberal policies are destroying America"? All the right wing talk circuit
    is abuzz about the insidious and nefarious vermin liberal, who with his
    vile black teeth sneaks into your home and steals your freedom. And yet my
    life is really no different than pre-1980 (politically speaking). I have no
    more freedoms, and I have no less freedoms. My paycheck went up, but so did
    inflation. Most families are two-income now to make ends meet, but
    according to the US Census Bureau, the percent of people below the poverty
    line has not significantly changed at all from 1980-1999. Some years up,
    some years down, but overall the same.

    All this talk of vast difference, all this party war-rhetoric, propaganda
    and fear, and nothing really changes. And we are too caught up in the "big
    war" of "my party must win" to stop, step back, and ask bigger questions
    than can be addressed in the current dialogue.

    So, that was a bit tangental, my point is that, yes, there is a Left Right
    aspect to the political spectrum, but no, modern conservatives and liberals
    are not the embodiment of this they fear makes them out to be.

    Arlo

    At 04:50 PM 10/18/2005, you wrote:
    >Arlo, Platt, Case etc.,
    >
    >Have you ever taken the test on
    >http://www.politicalcompass.org/
    >
    >Do you find this compass objectionable and if so could
    >you explain why?
    >
    >They are presenting the left and right as Platt
    >suggests.
    >
    >"If we recognise 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
    >--- Case <Case@ispots.com> wrote:
    >
    > > [Platt]
    > > By socialism I mean coercive government programs
    > > that redistribute personal
    > > income to fund national welfare programs.
    > >
    > > [Case]
    > > As opposed to a capitalist system the lets private
    > > corporations coerce and
    > > redistribute personal income to fund programs that
    > > promote the transmutation
    > > of all value into cash.
    > > Again Platt demonstrates his total lack of political
    > > understanding.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > > MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    > > Mail Archives:
    > > Aug '98 - Oct '02 -
    > > http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    > > Nov '02 Onward -
    > >
    >http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    > > MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
    > >
    > > To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the
    > > instructions at:
    > > http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    >Mail Archives:
    >Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    >Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    >MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
    >
    >To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    >http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html

    MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
    Mail Archives:
    Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
    Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
    MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net

    To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
    http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 19 2005 - 18:41:11 BST