Originally Posted by Silifi

Rather than try to catch up on 12 pages of discussion that I seem to have missed, I have a few points to make about what this all means.

There is some good stuff in there if you find the time, but regardless . . .

Originally Posted by Silifi

I do believe that Kurt is on to something when it comes to this shifting arc. However, I think we have to be careful about labels.

I should note that the labels you're referring to are from the Mitchell Chart which I've modified. His labels are intended to be evocative of current American politics, which is handy but I stripped the idea down to bare essentials and just use top, bottom, left and right.

Originally Posted by Silifi

As I see it, you have to look directly at the axes, not at the labels for each particular vector. The "true right" might correspond to theocrats, but is that really what it means? I don't think so.

The axis simply says "deference to authority." This really doesn't have anything to do with theocracy. It has to do with trust in the authority of the governing system. In the case of the United States, our authority is the President.

Or your boss, or the mayor of your town, or your commanding officer or your pastor, etc . . . It's not who you view as an authority (or how many authorities) that matters, but your disposition toward them. The reason why Mitchell labeled the true right "theoconservative" is because right now in America most true right types are white Southern evangelicals who primarily care about social issues.

Originally Posted by Silifi

Which I think explains FDR fairly well. FDR is probably the man who has come closest to being an American monarch, and he really can be described as a sort of Democratic King. He was also probably the most authoritarian president of all time, in terms of how much he expanded the authority of the federal government, and of the executive branch.

He was on the right of the chart, but lower right instead of true right.

Originally Posted by Silifi

So let's not get caught up on labels, and look at what the axes actually mean. If you look at that instead, the center of this country is actually more or less "pro-nuance." And after the crisis, the center will be divided between a nuanced center-right, and an anti-authority (against our current system of governance, which is representative democracy) center-left.

Pro-nuance is somewhat pejorative towards people on the top of the chart. It's sort of like calling the top of the chart "pro-principle." As for the leading edge being against representative democracy, that's unlikely. Rather, they're going to be opposed to an imperial Presidency and prefer an executive that is restrained by the legislature.

Originally Posted by Silifi

Rather than try to catch up on 12 pages of discussion that I seem to have missed, I have a few points to make about what this all means.

I do believe that Kurt is on to something when it comes to this shifting arc. However, I think we have to be careful about labels.

As I see it, you have to look directly at the axes, not at the labels for each particular vector. The "true right" might correspond to theocrats, but is that really what it means? I don't think so.

The axis simply says "deference to authority." This really doesn't have anything to do with theocracy. It has to do with trust in the authority of the governing system. In the case of the United States, our authority is the President.

Which I think explains FDR fairly well. FDR is probably the man who has come closest to being an American monarch, and he really can be described as a sort of Democratic King. He was also probably the most authoritarian president of all time, in terms of how much he expanded the authority of the federal government, and of the executive branch.

And he was largely supported by what was the center of the American public during the crisis. In other words, FDR was the patriarch of the "true right," if "right" is defined as deference to authority.

So let's not get caught up on labels, and look at what the axes actually mean. If you look at that instead, the center of this country is actually more or less "pro-nuance." And after the crisis, the center will be divided between a nuanced center-right, and an anti-authority (against our current system of governance, which is representative democracy) center-left.

I agree with you on labels and on FDR, though I disagree that "deference to authority" means "deference to the present form of government". Fascists, Fundamentalists, and many Communists are deferential to an authority of some kind even though that authority isn't the existing form of government. And on the other end there are people skeptical of authority and yet support liberal democracy (such as myself).

Originally Posted by Odin

I agree with you on labels and on FDR, though I disagree that "deference to authority" means "deference to the present form of government". Fascists, Fundamentalists, and many Communists are deferential to an authority of some kind even though that authority isn't the existing form of government. And on the other end there are people skeptical of authority and yet support liberal democracy (such as myself).

Yes, those people are more authoritarian. But I do think that federal, representative democracy with a strong executive, is not something that will continue to be supported by the true left. Nor do I think that people that support such a system can really be called "the left" according to this chart.

In other words, the "true right" will support the present authorities, whoever they may be in society. Fascists are certainly both revolutionary and authoritarian, but what they seek to do is embolden authorities in the system in a revolutionary way. They are supporting the present authorities by proposing a revolution that gives the authorities more power.

Communists are different, mainly in that so many of the revolutionaries are people with good intentions (who actually want a stateless, equal society) who are subverted by power-seeking amoral types who are really more like fascists, although they'll support the revolution because they know it will succeed.

In the future, I can't imagine that the true-left will like FDR one bit. They would probably see him, and his GI successors, as villains. And they would probably try to dispose of the system that created him and replace it with something less authoritarian than what we have now. Probably something vaguely anarchist, or at least intensely decentralized.

I will posit the current healthcare bill as an example of True Bottom politics.

I found this theory insightful.

Seeing that its been a year since the last post how does everyone feel in terms of proof for or against Mr. Horner's Political Archetype theory?

What political archetype am I?

Originally Posted by Adina

What political archetype am I?

I haven't seen enough of your posts to be able to identify your archetype. However, I've found, so far, that my estimates of a person's archetype (when I have a guess) usually matches their own estimate (or is, at worst, an 1/8th turn off the mark).

If you go to the start of this thread and read the bottom of the first post and all of the second, you should be able to assess your own position. I haven't made a quiz that finds a person's position -- but there's a reason for that. Any such quiz would have to ask generic questions about social ethics that were as free of hot-button issues as possible. I would prefer to have a quiz with fairly abstract decisions and then, at the end, based on archetype I could guess things like whether or not you're pro-life or favor income redistribution. (And if such a quiz couldn't be constructed, then the theory is probably false.)

I don't know whether I want more rules or fewer. Perhaps fewer, then everyone would be able to understand what the rules are. But I think what the rules are is most important. I don't know whether I'm a libertarian or a conservative, though. I like certain aspects of both.

Originally Posted by Adina

I don't know whether I want more rules or fewer. Perhaps fewer, then everyone would be able to understand what the rules are. But I think what the rules are is most important. I don't know whether I'm a libertarian or a conservative, though. I like certain aspects of both.

So, I take it you are on the right side of the chart and simply unsure where you lie on the vertical axis? One way to look at the vertical axis is to assume that no matter how the rules are set up, they will have a flaw and the question is whether you think contradictory laws are better or worse than laws with loopholes. If you think contradiction is worse, you're probably toward the top. If you think loopholes are worse, then more likely the bottom.

There's also a historical way of looking at the question. In your lifetime, do you think government has been piling rules on top of rules and burying the public under red tape -- or do you think that the government has been allowing many people to avoid or flaunt the law. If both, which of these is the greater problem, in your opinion? If the former, you're on top, if the latter, on the bottom. If you really can't choose, you're probably true right.

(Note that I have left out any specific policy examples. There's two reasons for this. One, I'd like to guess some of your policy stances, once you've picked a vertical alignment. Two, if I pick too few specific issues, I could be thrown off by picking a policy area out of alignment with the rest of your views.)

I think contradictory laws are worse. So what do you think my policy stances are?

Originally Posted by Adina

I think contradictory laws are worse. So what do you think my policy stances are?

So we're looking at somewhere near the upper right / true right boundary.

I'm going to make a few guesses (we'll see how close I am):

1) You support civil unions, but oppose gay marriage.
2) You support the War on Drugs.
3) You are pro-life.
4) You think original intent is most important when interpreting the Constitution and think the government frequently disregards the Constitution.
5) You think the bank bailouts were a mistake on free market grounds.
6) You supported the war in Iraq and still think it was generally a good idea (although you have reservations).
7) You favor increased border patrols and oppose amnesty.
8) You think that civil liberties concerns raised by the War on Terror are well-intentioned but a bit overwrought.
9) You doubt the science on global warming and suspect that the danger has been exaggerated to justify more powerful government.
10) You think that our media culture is crass, decadent and encourages vice.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

So we're looking at somewhere near the upper right / true right boundary.

I'm going to make a few guesses (we'll see how close I am):

1) You support civil unions, but oppose gay marriage.
2) You support the War on Drugs.
3) You are pro-life.
4) You think original intent is most important when interpreting the Constitution and think the government frequently disregards the Constitution.
5) You think the bank bailouts were a mistake on free market grounds.
6) You supported the war in Iraq and still think it was generally a good idea (although you have reservations).
7) You favor increased border patrols and oppose amnesty.
8) You think that civil liberties concerns raised by the War on Terror are well-intentioned but a bit overwrought.
9) You doubt the science on global warming and suspect that the danger has been exaggerated to justify more powerful government.
10) You think that our media culture is crass, decadent and encourages vice.

Heh, I'm almost the exact opposite which fits with me being True Left.

1) I support same-sex marriages and think anyone who opposes them is a bigot.
2) I am against the "war on drugs" because it is racist, authoritarian, and unworkable. Drug abuse should be treated as a medical issue and "soft drugs" like pot should be legalized.
3) I am pro-choice.
4) I think the context of the situation must be taken into account when interpreting laws, but the interpretation but be consistent and in tune with the spirit of the law's essential purpose.
5) I think the bailouts were wrong because they bailed out the scrumbags that caused the crisis in the first place and defended the status quo instead of actually fixing anything. It is classic Corporatist State Capitalism, privatize the profits and socialize the risk.
6) I think the invasion of Iraq was a violation of international law and based on lies, we should leave ASAP.
7) I think there should be an amnesty for most illegals already in the country, and there should be a harsh crackdown on employers that hire illegal immigrants.
8) I think the "WoT" is being used as an excuse to erode our civil liberties and to habituate us to authoritarianism. Islamic terrorism is mostly the result of US Imperialism in the Middle East, especially it's support for Israel's genocidal policies towards the Palestinians as well as support for brutal regimes in Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
9) I think AGW is as certainly true as is possible in science and Denialism is propaganda for Big Oil and big Coal.
10) I think the media serves to distract and mislead people and promote shallow Consumerist behavior.

Originally Posted by Odin

Heh, I'm almost the exact opposite which fits with me being True Left.

1) I support same-sex marriages and think anyone who opposes them is a bigot.
2) I am against the "war on drugs" because it is racist, authoritarian, and unworkable. Drug abuse should be treated as a medical issue and "soft drugs" like pot should be legalized.
3) I am pro-choice.
4) I think the context of the situation must be taken into account when interpreting laws, but the interpretation but be consistent and in tune with the spirit of the law's essential purpose.
5) I think the bailouts were wrong because they bailed out the scrumbags that caused the crisis in the first place and defended the status quo instead of actually fixing anything. It is classic Corporatist State Capitalism, privatize the profits and socialize the risk.
6) I think the invasion of Iraq was a violation of international law and based on lies, we should leave ASAP.
7) I think there should be an amnesty for most illegals already in the country, and there should be a harsh crackdown on employers that hire illegal immigrants.
8) I think the "WoT" is being used as an excuse to erode our civil liberties and to habituate us to authoritarianism. Islamic terrorism is mostly the result of US Imperialism in the Middle East, especially it's support for Israel's genocidal policies towards the Palestinians as well as support for brutal regimes in Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
9) I think AGW is as certainly true as is possible in science and Denialism is propaganda for Big Oil and big Coal.
10) I think the media serves to distract and mislead people and promote shallow Consumerist behavior.

Almost the opposite. Your points 4) and 5) both have a slight concise rules lean to them that puts you in the upper left quadrant, although probably not in the upper left sector itself.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

So we're looking at somewhere near the upper right / true right boundary.

I'm going to make a few guesses (we'll see how close I am):

1) You support civil unions, but oppose gay marriage.
2) You support the War on Drugs.
3) You are pro-life.
4) You think original intent is most important when interpreting the Constitution and think the government frequently disregards the Constitution.
5) You think the bank bailouts were a mistake on free market grounds.
6) You supported the war in Iraq and still think it was generally a good idea (although you have reservations).
7) You favor increased border patrols and oppose amnesty.
8) You think that civil liberties concerns raised by the War on Terror are well-intentioned but a bit overwrought.
9) You doubt the science on global warming and suspect that the danger has been exaggerated to justify more powerful government.
10) You think that our media culture is crass, decadent and encourages vice.

I don't know I fall upper right on a couple of things, maybe I'm a little closer to the individualist though because.. well

1) None of my business, except that LBGT people are losing their rights and that has to stop.
2) The war on drugs must end ASAP. Liberate the POWs without delay.
3) None of my business, except that abortion restrictions cost women their rights and should not be accepted.
4) I think corrupt and unconstitutionally acting Senators should show some spine and quiz these judges about Paine and Jefferson and Hamilton and Madison. I think they should &^#$@ understand and appreciate the concept of natural rights and the balance of power in a multi-branch federal system.
5) I think the bank bailouts were a mistake on just about any kind of grounds you want to name! If we want to play free market with the money supply, then let the banks fail. If we want to socialize the money supply, nationalize the banks & replace their bosses with number-crunching bureaucrats who work for $80-$100k a year.
6) Our foreign policy is a hypocritically imperialistic farce. Well, it would be a farce if it weren't so tragic. The U.N. war crimes commission should take a look... I'll be pragmatic on that issue of "centralized power" as the U.N. is probably more multi-polar than D.C.
7) Someone wants to pay taxes? Welcome to America!
8) The security state response to 9/11 is both unconstitutional and intolerable.
9) I doubt the science on global warming and suspect that the danger has been exaggerated to justify more powerful plutocracy. (Distinctions between government and finance have been exaggerated for election campaigning purposes).
10) I think that our media culture is crass, decadent and encourages vice, but the problem is that it is too boring and doesn't take enough risks.

I ran into this interesting perspective of True Bottom government over at DU:

http://www.democraticunderground.com...ss=389x8891036

When you have a lot of poorly written laws, one of two bad things can happens.

Either the laws get enforced as the (wo)men inforcing them see fit. There's a lot of whim and caprice and ego involved then.

Or the laws get enforced even-handedly but are oppressive. There's often a lot of ego in this, as well, as the enforcers get their jollies from throwing their weight around.

The alternative is to have a restricted set of laws. The downside is that those we hate and loathe get by with things that we hate and loathe. It's better to be capricious or totalitarian, many believe, than tolerate things we find intolerable.

Since we can never allow discretion--perhaps something the tolerant could never tolerate would happen and society wouldn't be perfectly regulated--we go for zero tolerance policies. Sure, it hurts the innocent, but nobody's ever really innocent.

When we see something happen that is too intolerant and unjust as the result of a law, the impulse is to rewrite the law from 1 page to 300 pages to make sure that we've covered every possibility and contingency, while allowing no discretion to the enforcers. Of course, we're not omniscient, so we screw it up; people react in unpredictable ways, and we decry their unconscionable response to our wonderful plan to order and control a society and make it truly free, and so we need to write more laws to achieve our goals. Eh. Naturally governmental and regulatory oppression is the consequence of living in a free society. Freedom through tyranny. It's a common fallacy when you get things turned around. The question is in the definition of "freedom."

From a thread involving incident of moron bureaucrats going after some kids' lemonade stand.

1) You support civil unions, but oppose gay marriage.
I dunno, I guess. Never given it much thought. Civil unions are like business contracts for the sharing of money between people, right? That's probably good, and wouldn't offend any religion AFAIK.

2) You support the War on Drugs.
Yeah

3) You are pro-life.
Yeah

4) You think original intent is most important when interpreting the Constitution and think the government frequently disregards the Constitution.
Yeah

5) You think the bank bailouts were a mistake on free market grounds.
I dunno. I haven't paid much attention to the economy to have an opinion one way or the other.

6) You supported the war in Iraq and still think it was generally a good idea (although you have reservations).
No. Quite the opposite. I strongly oppose any war.

7) You favor increased border patrols and oppose amnesty.
I dunno. Whatever is best.

8) You think that civil liberties concerns raised by the War on Terror are well-intentioned but a bit overwrought.
Haven't really thought about it. People seem pretty free.

9) You doubt the science on global warming and suspect that the danger has been exaggerated to justify more powerful government.
I dunno. The science is probably right.

10) You think that our media culture is crass, decadent and encourages vice.
Yeah, but some media is good. I like the positive stuff, and can mostly avoid the negative stuff.

Personally, I think Global Warming will follow the conservative estimates made.

Originally Posted by Adina

Personally, I think Global Warming will follow the conservative estimates made.

You will be very wrong. When climate changes, it changes with a bang.

Originally Posted by Odin

You will be very wrong. When climate changes, it changes with a bang.

Well, we'll just have to wait and find out.

Heh, I'm almost the exact opposite which fits with me being True Left.

That's interesting. However, those were just a guess of my political views not the actual ones, which aren't exactly what was predicted, so you're not necessarily the exact opposite.

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

To help clarify further, here is a version of my revision with the Nolan Chart overlaid:



and a version with the political compass overlaid:



political compass:

The Nolan chart is the same as your revision of the Mitchell chart. There is no difference; the square should be aligned exactly.

The political compass is the same chart, but aligned completely differently. The top in the Nolan Libertarian chart (libertarian) is the bottom right (purple) in the compass. The Left in the Libertarian Chart, is bottom left (green) in the compass. Totalitarian in the Nolan chart (bottom), is upper left in the compass (red). The Right in the Libertarian chart, is upper right in the compass (blue).

The "Horner revision" aligns exactly with the political compass, as your graphic shows.

So where would I be on the Nolan and Mitchell charts?

Originally Posted by Adina

1) You support civil unions, but oppose gay marriage.
I dunno, I guess. Never given it much thought. Civil unions are like business contracts for the sharing of money between people, right? That's probably good, and wouldn't offend any religion AFAIK.

2) You support the War on Drugs.
Yeah

3) You are pro-life.
Yeah

4) You think original intent is most important when interpreting the Constitution and think the government frequently disregards the Constitution.
Yeah

5) You think the bank bailouts were a mistake on free market grounds.
I dunno. I haven't paid much attention to the economy to have an opinion one way or the other.

6) You supported the war in Iraq and still think it was generally a good idea (although you have reservations).
No. Quite the opposite. I strongly oppose any war.

7) You favor increased border patrols and oppose amnesty.
I dunno. Whatever is best.

8) You think that civil liberties concerns raised by the War on Terror are well-intentioned but a bit overwrought.
Haven't really thought about it. People seem pretty free.

9) You doubt the science on global warming and suspect that the danger has been exaggerated to justify more powerful government.
I dunno. The science is probably right.

10) You think that our media culture is crass, decadent and encourages vice.
Yeah, but some media is good. I like the positive stuff, and can mostly avoid the negative stuff.

Looks like 3 correct, 2 half-right, 4 unclear and one incorrect. It seems like at least some aspects of your political views are as yet unformed -- you're a Millenial right? The fact that you're anti-war and pro-life makes me think you may actually be more upper than right, rather than the reverse.

It's important to note that a person can shift on the chart. It's possible that your socially conservative stances are purely a product of upbringing (rather than temperament) and would diminish if you had prolonged contact with more liberal people. It's also possible that your views would become more intense as a defense. It depends on what really matters most to you.

I have some questions (using your stance on drugs as a lens) that might help narrow in on your spot in the upper-right:

Which is more important to you, that our society and culture disapproves of drug use or that the law imposes penalties for their distribution and use? If you became convinced that laws prohibiting drug sales encouraged intrusive and abusive behavior by the police, would you consider that a cost worth paying or would it be better to decriminalize drugs and focus on treatment of addiction? In other words, if trade-offs have to be made between handling a problem with social disapproval or handling it with the force of law, which method (push-come-to-shove) do you favor?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The Nolan chart is the same as your revision of the Mitchell chart. There is no difference; the square should be aligned exactly.

The alignment is correct. First off, the Nolan chart was created in the early 70s, and the peak of the chart would correspond with the location of the fringe zone at that time (which was in motion, since we were part way through a social moment). The types of questions used in Nolan chart quizzes also bear this out, since they track preference for state intervention on social and economic axes. Deference to non-governmental authorities is not well tracked in such quizzes (see below).

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The political compass is the same chart, but aligned completely differently.

At first glance this seems right, but the questions on their quizzes are notably different. The political compass quiz asks questions that discern temperament and ask about social attitudes, not just what people want enshrined in law. For example, if you oppose homosexuality but also oppose sodomy laws (a not-uncommon upper-right position) the Nolan quizzes mark that as socially liberal, but the compass quiz will mark you conservative because the former asks about the laws you favor while the latter asks about your personal beliefs. That's why the two sets of axes are not perfectly aligned.

The compass economic axis is also notably more in line with European norms than the Nolan chart. The compass checks for socialist inclinations in a broad sense, including attitudes toward unions and co-ops, while the Nolan chart, again, focuses like a laser on the role of the state, which means that its going to pick up the more bureaucratic egalitarian ideologies but left libertarians are going to score higher on the Nolan economic axis than left authoritarians. Taken together this twists the Nolan chart a bit off of the compass.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The "Horner revision" aligns exactly with the political compass, as your graphic shows.

Except that the compass axes align with the corners of the Horner revision. To use compass terminology, the theory posits that while the last Crisis saw a left-right conflict (with an authoritarian bias), the present Crisis will feature a libertarian-authoritarian conflict (with a left bias).

Originally Posted by Kurt Horner

At first glance this seems right, but the questions on their quizzes are notably different. The political compass quiz asks questions that discern temperament and ask about social attitudes, not just what people want enshrined in law. For example, if you oppose homosexuality but also oppose sodomy laws (a not-uncommon upper-right position) the Nolan quizzes mark that as socially liberal, but the compass quiz will mark you conservative because the former asks about the laws you favor while the latter asks about your personal beliefs. That's why the two sets of axes are not perfectly aligned.

I guess, but I would separate these two concepts out as "personal values" and "political beliefs". One can personally disapprove of homosexuality yet support equal rights under the law for homosexuals such as gay marriage or even just civil unions.

Or to use a more commonly held viewpoint, it's possible to be politically pro-choice on abortion even if you personally find the practice distasteful and would never consider it as an option personally (i.e. "personally pro-life and socially pro-choice").

Separated out like that, I don't think personal values have any place on a political chart -- only your views on what public policy should be on the issue.