Political Compass
I have considered for a long time that the differences between different sets of political views cannot be adequately expressed by a simple one-dimensional line from left to right.
For a start, nearly everyone recognises that the far left and far right come back round and meet round the back. Communism and Fascism have for more in common with each other than either has with mainstream democratic politics even on the "same side" of the political spectrum. And present day BNP activists are astonishingly similar in many ways to the Militant Tendancy activists I recall having to deal with in my student days.
A more sophisticated way to look at different views is to consider two dimensions: one way of doing this is for "Left to right" to be defined by what degree of economic liberty you support - with more economic freedom on the right - while "Up and Down" is represented by your degree of social liberalism (usually shown with authoritarians on the top and social libertarians on the bottom.)
Two good websites which discuss this subject are Political Compass and Political Spectrum both of which discuss the placing of major political figures and include tests to check one's own.
Here is how "Political Compass" chart world leaders:
My current score on the Political Compass test is -
Economic Left/Right: +4.62
(where -10 is extreme left and +10 extreme right)
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.82
(where +10 is extreme authoritarian and -10 extreme social liberal)
This makes me a centre-right moderate social liberal, and as such, surprisingly rare for a modern politician in being in the quadrant of the political map which supports both economic and social liberty. You'll note that there is nobody in this quadrant in the international list. On a UK chart I would probably be sharing the quadrant with David Davis, Peter Lilley, and possibly some of the "Orange Book" Lib/Dems. (I come out in the same quadrant, though much closer to the centre point, on the "Political Spectrum" test.)
If you compare the two graphs you will also see that I come out as both far more liberal, and apparently marginally to the left, of Gordon Brown. But considering the present Prime Minister's propensity for supporting ghastly authoritarian measures, and clobbering the poor, (see previous post "Whom the Gods would destroy") for a Tory candidate to be more liberal and left wing than the present Prime Minister is less surprising than one might think!
For a start, nearly everyone recognises that the far left and far right come back round and meet round the back. Communism and Fascism have for more in common with each other than either has with mainstream democratic politics even on the "same side" of the political spectrum. And present day BNP activists are astonishingly similar in many ways to the Militant Tendancy activists I recall having to deal with in my student days.
A more sophisticated way to look at different views is to consider two dimensions: one way of doing this is for "Left to right" to be defined by what degree of economic liberty you support - with more economic freedom on the right - while "Up and Down" is represented by your degree of social liberalism (usually shown with authoritarians on the top and social libertarians on the bottom.)
Two good websites which discuss this subject are Political Compass and Political Spectrum both of which discuss the placing of major political figures and include tests to check one's own.
Here is how "Political Compass" chart world leaders:
My current score on the Political Compass test is -
Economic Left/Right: +4.62
(where -10 is extreme left and +10 extreme right)
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.82
(where +10 is extreme authoritarian and -10 extreme social liberal)
This makes me a centre-right moderate social liberal, and as such, surprisingly rare for a modern politician in being in the quadrant of the political map which supports both economic and social liberty. You'll note that there is nobody in this quadrant in the international list. On a UK chart I would probably be sharing the quadrant with David Davis, Peter Lilley, and possibly some of the "Orange Book" Lib/Dems. (I come out in the same quadrant, though much closer to the centre point, on the "Political Spectrum" test.)
If you compare the two graphs you will also see that I come out as both far more liberal, and apparently marginally to the left, of Gordon Brown. But considering the present Prime Minister's propensity for supporting ghastly authoritarian measures, and clobbering the poor, (see previous post "Whom the Gods would destroy") for a Tory candidate to be more liberal and left wing than the present Prime Minister is less surprising than one might think!
Comments
I approach quantitive tests with a certain degree of apprehension, because I am not always confident that I have able to answer the question honestly. How a question is worded can determine the answer. In other words it is possible to give the opposite answer agree/disagree had it being phrased differently. I possibly felt the same anxious trepidation, as when I took personality tests for prospective employers, in the mid 80’s when the tests were all the rage.
Tick box answers do not allow for shades of grey. For example would you agree of disagree: “Abortion, when the woman's life is not threatened, should always be illegal.” Could be a clear-cut answer if you either believe all life is sacrosanct or it is a women’s right to choose. What if you believe that life is sacrosanct but more should be done to avoid unwanted pregnancy, or that counselling and support should be provided. This could enable an informed choice to made by the woman (and preferably include her partner.) Clearly you would be compelled to disagree with making abortion always illegal. Then the issue is by how much would you disagree, when in some instances you believe abortion could be avoided.
On the other hand qualitative testing with more open-ended answers are more difficult to evaluate. Some answers are definite where opinions are strongly formed e.g. for me, “A significant advantage of a one-party state is that it avoids all the arguments that delay progress in a democratic political system”. Strongly disagree. Just look how efficient the former Soviet Union’s economy was!
I experimented taking the test three times. I answered them honestly, but played around with whether I strongly agreed/disagreed or just agreed or disagreed. The result being I was consistently on the Libertarian end of the Authority/Libertarian scale give or take a few fractions of a whole (between –5 and – 6.) However depending on how strongly I agreed or disagreed changed me from centre left, but right on the line - 0.1 to – 1 and – 2.38.
I was not surprised to find I was on the Libertarian section of the quadrant and as a ‘Progressive Conservative’ expected to be near the centre, but wasn’t certain whether that would be centre left or right. I certainly expected to be left of Gordon Brown and far less authoritarian. Brown has let down his own side. As the first test was done with spontaneous honesty and the subsequent two were more contrived, I would take it that the first is more accurate. I am basically a Libertarian, politically central, but with some tendencies towards social democracy.
Despite misgivings about the methodology for evaluation, this was a worthwhile exercise and seems to represent a certain reality. It is possible to be either a left or right Libertarian/Authoritarian or a Libertarian or Authoritarian right/left winger. Perhaps the more centre right/left of the Libertarian section denotes the greater the combination of economic left right. It is possible to be committed to a free market in so far as it allows for a certain degree of social ethics. As a consumer I can choose to buy ‘Fair Trade’ or recycled goods, thus influencing the market. When Margaret Thatcher said there was no society, she mistakenly mistook the state for society. There is a distinction.
In my opinion the Progressive Conservativism expressed by David Cameron and reflected in current Conservative Party policy incorporates a little social democracy. One thing I can say as a Conservative with a just a hint of Lib/Dem that there is a place for these views within the broad church of the modern Conservative Party.
Roll on the next general election and a Cameron led Government.
Thank you for a thought provoking article and link.
Nevertheless it's a better way of thinking about political values than imposing the idea of a one-dimensional left-right spectrum.