Originally Posted by ziggyX65

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.

I definitely understand this point view (and this is the implicit method of the Nolan chart). The authors of the political compass, OTOH, make the point that strongly held personal values often find their way into politics. In practice, most of the people who desire a personal/political division are people whose personal views are just not as intense as those whose personal views and political views are entwined. Both of these theories have merit. The Mitchell chart (and especially my revision of it) attempts to get at more fundamental biases where the rule-making institution is not necessarily the state, but nonetheless focusing on the impact of social institutions, not just "I like ice cream" personal sentiments.

ooks 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?

Yeah, I'm a Millennial/Homelander.

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 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? between handling a problem with social disapproval or handling it with the between handling a problem with social disapproval or handling it with the force of law, which method (push-come-to-shove) do you favor?

It doesn't really matter what I think, but rather what the majority of people think. Personally I don't like illegal drugs, and even some legal ones. I think that most of the people who want to legalize drugs, want to be able to take them, but the laws are enough to discourage them from taking them now. As for medicinal purposes, I have no opinion, but defer to the medical experts on what is best for the populace.

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 possible. But I doubt I will ever be liberal enough to advocate violence, or conservative enough to advocate war, no matter how "justified" or convenient it may seem.

Originally Posted by Adina

It doesn't really matter what I think, but rather what the majority of people think.

Based on this quote alone, I'm going to go with upper right (what Mitchell calls "paleoconservative"). I asked questions intended to determine which axis you have a stronger emphasis on, and since you gave an indeterminate answer, that would put you in middle of the quadrant.

This also means that your reaction to the events of the unfolding Crisis will notably alter and define your political views. Because you're near (and falling further into) the fringe zone, and your views aren't already particularly strident, you could easily end up just about anywhere within the upper right quadrant by the end of the Crisis. If you tend to see the events of the Crisis as a positive development, you'll probably end up with a libertarian-ish true top inclination. If you view them negatively, you'll likely swing toward a true right inclination.

Originally Posted by Adina

Personally I don't like illegal drugs, and even some legal ones. I think that most of the people who want to legalize drugs, want to be able to take them, but the laws are enough to discourage them from taking them now.

I think you'll find that drug laws don't really discourage drug use. Almost anyone who wants to try drugs, already has. The question is whether that choice (by itself) gets them in legal trouble or not.

Originally Posted by Adina

It's possible. But I doubt I will ever be liberal enough to advocate violence, or conservative enough to advocate war, no matter how "justified" or convenient it may seem.

This is a curious statement. Why do you associate liberalism with violence? (I understand the conservative association with war, given recent history.)

is is a curious statement. Why do you associate liberalism with violence.

Or should I say killing, such as euthenasia or abortion. Oh, and I also disagree with the death penalty.

Originally Posted by Adina

Or should I say killing, such as euthenasia or abortion. Oh, and I also disagree with the death penalty.

Ah, you advocate the consistent life ethic -- a very uncommon position in our culture. (Ron Paul is the only notable political figure I can think of who advocates it.) The big question that you're going to have to ask yourself in this Crisis is a lesser of two evils question. Which is worse: war or abortion? And once you make that choice, your views on the other issue may soften.

It's amazing to me that it would be an uncommon position.

So, should I refer to myself a "conservative", even though I don't advocate war, and I'm undecided about a number of things? How similar are my political beliefs to Xers, since they are supposedly conservatives?

Originally Posted by Adina

So, should I refer to myself a "conservative", even though I don't advocate war, and I'm undecided about a number of things? How similar are my political beliefs to Xers, since they are supposedly conservatives?

Paleoconservative is just Mitchell's term for that part of the chart. Really, our culture doesn't have a good name for your combination of views because in the present context they're idiosyncratic.

Xers, and any generation, have members from all over the chart. However, there will be concentrations. The Xer = conservative stereotype is, like the Boomer = liberal stereotype, largely a myth. If anything, the reverse is true. Boomers get consistently more conservative as you advance through their birth years, and Xers get more liberal. This means that as Xers replace Boomers in power over the course of the Crisis, policy will shift left. However, the difference is primarily on social issues, so I expect more movement there than on economics. Millies will move things back the other way, although it's unclear what the key issues will be for them.

Paleoconservative is just Mitchell's term for that part of the chart. Really, our culture doesn't have a good name for your combination of views because in the present context they're idiosyncratic.

That's interesting that I grew up with idiosyncratic views. In the past, would my views have ever been considered the normal views? Do you think in the future they ever will become that? Which would be better for me, Democrats or Republicans?

Looking back over the first few pages....

It looks like your views were most common after the civil war between 1865 to somewhere near the turn of the century. Of course there are people with all views at all times, but the majority changes as a group.

Wow. I am old fashioned! I used to read a lot of old books, and tried to live by them a little bit, so that could be one reason I have the set of values I have.

well, not really.

Your also way ahead of your time

Originally Posted by Adina

That's interesting that I grew up with idiosyncratic views. In the past, would my views have ever been considered the normal views?

In the sense of the specific policy positions you hold, your views were never normal. For example, no one cared about abortion much until modern medicine made them safe and reliable. The consistent life ethic is an entirely modern concept. However, in terms of your attitudes toward rules and authority, your archetype has been in vogue before and will be again.

Debol1990 is correct that your viewpoint was the political center in the post-Civil War period.

Originally Posted by Adina

Which would be better for me, Democrats or Republicans?

That is an extremely complicated question, which is hard to answer without me editorializing and abandoning the even-handed tone I try to take in this thread. Unlike the Nolan chart, which was explicitly created as an outreach tool, I do not intend this political archetype theory to be used to push any particular viewpoint.

I will, however, lay out the variables. Assuming that the current two-party system survives this Crisis (which I think is more likely than not), the Democrats will continue to be the leading edge party and the Republicans the trailing edge party. As the Crisis progresses, upper right views will move further into the fringe zone, which means that your views will either be weird and irrelevant or you will learn to speak the language of one camp or the other and drift either counter-clockwise (toward the Democratic zone) or clockwise (toward where most Republican voters will be). Which of these three options you take is entirely up to you, and I think it's quite likely that none of those options will be more common than the others. It's entirely possible that you will never feel adequately represented by typical American politicians of either party, even decades from now.

That's very interesting.

Yes interesting.

Originally Posted by Tone70

Yes interesting.

Any chance I could convert you to my views?

Well, um, uh... you see I've never really been much of a convert... I am perhaps constitutionally unconvertible (insert car joke here)... um, which views in particular again?

Originally Posted by Tone70

Well, um, uh... you see I've never really been much of a convert... I am perhaps constitutionally unconvertible (insert car joke here)... um, which views in particular again?

Anti-killing people, basically.

Originally Posted by Adina

Ant-killing people, basically.

Adina, I am already there. You would be preaching to the choir on that one. At least in regards to most things. Unlike you, I am, however, pro choice socially, but not so personally. I do not think this will change, although you may try if it pleases you.

In general I am against killing except in self defense. I must acknowledge though that in all candor, there are likely a number of other circumstances (that thankfully don't presently exist) that would lead me to act immorally and take life for other reasons. I believe this is in some regard due to my military training, but largely due to an essentially amoral nature in regards to certain pragmatic necessities. Simply, when desperate unfortunately I, and perhaps anyone, will do almost anything.

That being said, presently I feed my hastas to the rabbits, give apples to the squirrels and rescue stray bugs in my house by taking them outside. So go figure.

Good for you! So at least you agree with the most important part of my ideology, which apparently is behind the times. Of course I also believe in abolishing ageism, and discrimination of people based on their national origins, although I consider it less important than the non-killing part.

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.

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.



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).

The compass and Nolan charts are the same conceptually, though aligned upside-down and backwards 135 degrees and 45 degrees. But the actual questions are different and have a broader range, as you say. That doesn't change the identity of the conception, of what the circle and axes consist of.

I don't know about your shifts during different turnings; I don't quite get your concept.

Debol1990 is correct that your viewpoint was the political center in the post-Civil War period.

What would the typical left-winger from that time period believe in?

Here is an image of the compass overlaid with the Nolan categories where they belong:



Here is an image of the Horner compass with the Nolan categories overlaid where they belong:



If you want to know whether you are left or right, on either the Nolan or Compass circle, just refer to the labels. Note that "authoritarian" and "libertarian" mean different things on each circle, so that can be confusing. On the compass, "Authoritarian" refers only to social views (social conservative), and "Left" refers only to economic liberal views (socialism). Conversely, "Libertarian" means social libertarian, and "Right" means economic conservative (aka trickle-down theory). But the axes are labelled correctly.

The same axes appear on the Nolan chart, but run diagonally: economic from upper right (economic conservative) to lower left (economic liberal/socialist), socially from upper left (social liberal) to lower right (social conservative). The top of the Nolan chart (= Horner compass) is Libertarian (simple rules, I would say fewer rules), and the bottom is totalitarian (precise rules; I would call it just MORE rules). On the Left is challenge to authority which is the same as liberal or "left" in America; on the right is deference to authority which is conservative.

When I looked at these two tests several times, I didn't notice a difference in their overall result, as far as where you would be placed is concerned. Testing for opinions on laws as opposed to beliefs, would average out either way, depending on the question. Conservative or liberal beliefs are not more or less common on the political compass than conservative or liberal opinions on laws on the political compass. So it's impossible to tell which direction people would change from one test to another, depending on the difference between their beliefs and their opinions on laws.

The more European emphasis in the compass only affects their definition of "Left" as economic left, which is only a matter of labeling and orientation of the map.

Off hand (only) I would say that consensus opinion in a 4T leans toward the bottom or bottom left of the Horner revision of the Nolan chart. But a circular graph of that using the Nolan and compass charts can be misleading, since in America most opinion remains democratic and not totalitarian. In a 3T the consensus is economic conservatism (upper right), and in a 2T social liberalism (upper left). In a 1T it might be also slightly lower on the scale, leaning to the right. In all these cases a circular graph like Kurt's overlaid on the political compass may be misleading, since in democratic America predominant opinion will remain above the horizon. Perhaps that's what Kurt or Mitchell mean by "precise" instead of totalitarian and "simple" rather than libertarian.

Originally Posted by Adina

What would the typical left-winger from that time period believe in?

Actually, a quick way to discover that would be to look at the reforms imposed later by the Progressives and the Missionary Generation. But off the top of my head:

Prohibition of alcohol.
More rights for women, though Suffrage (the right to vote) would have been the far-left fringe in those days.
The economic rights of the farmers against the railroads.
On the far, far left - the fringe - the rights of the workers to form organize, form unions, and strike.

Try googling for 19th Century reform movements 1865-1900 and see what comes up.

@The Grey Badger,
Where are you on the chart, and what are your political beliefs, and have they changed much over time? & What were they when you were my age and younger?