"The Political Compass" Is Not "Integral," But IS a 4th-Person, LR Perspective on Political Institutions.

Update:

To avoid confusion, I should point out that "The Political Compass" is not the same as Ken Wilber's "Four Quadrants," but can be located on KW's quadrants at fourth-person, LR 13th Level Planetary/Informational.  Or, to put another way, "The Political Compass" is a fourth-person, 13th Level Planetary/Informational perspective on fourth-person, 12th level industrial/national political systems located on the LR quadrant:

As such, "The Political Compass" isn't concerned with fifth-person and sixth-person Integral realizations nor with much else beyond fourth-person (plural third-person "ITS"), but can be located on the LR quadrant on KW's "Quadrants" above.  Just thought that I should clarify that.  That is all for now. 

Everything below the dotted line is the same as before:

----------------------------------------------------------------------

The links below are bad.  To take the online political compass test, please go to http://www.politicalcompass.org/ (this link is correct).

4:20 AM - The Disappearing Left and the Timeless Eternal Center Category: News and Politics   I superimposed almost all of the charts from politicalcompass.org onto neat page only to find that the "left" had disappeared.  This was accidental.  I don't know how it happened.  Whereas the vertical line represents the social scale from authoritarianism/fascism on top to libertarianism/anarchism on the bottom, the traditional left-right horizontal line refers strictly to types of economic systems.  A common misconception among many Americans is that capitalism is the most equitable and just economic system to ensure democracy and the greatest good for all.  There is supposedly a "timeless eternal center" between the vertical authoritarian-libertarian line and the horizontal left-right economic line between communism and neo-liberalism (free-market capitalism).  However, with industrialization and globalization, nearly all centrist and left-center politicians have moved to the right.  Here is the chart minus the background page for better viewing.  Notice how most politicians are clustered on the upper-right quadrant of the chart.  There is no such thing as "liberalism" in American politics.  As you can see, even the left-leaning politicians are center-right.

The charts above are snapshots of global political surfaces, which are partisan and somewhat right-of-center. 

Because of many similarites to Ken's quadrants, I thought I would share it with my integral friends to get their feedback.  Should you care to take the test and post your results under comments, I would appreciate.  I'm interested in seeing how integral people compare.  My results came out far left of center as expected but only slightly left of Ralph Nader, Gandhi, and the Dalai Lama.  This score could possibly indicate that I am a renmant of the "fringe" postmodern crowd or eco-radicalism from the '60s or '70s.  However, I tend to think that an integral personal score would turn out similar to mine although if they were to be in a leadership role (such as politics or religion), they would necessarily have to officially embrace the more established views of authoritarian and capitalism.

As KW and others at integral have noted, today's political landscape is no longer divided along a merely one-dimensional horizontal line with "liberal" on the left and "conservative" on the right (which was the standard division during the Enlightenment 300 years ago) but is more accurately depicted as a two-dimensional plane divided into four different quadrants containing not just a single horizontal line, but also a vertical line. 

The vertical-horizontal axis used by politicalcompass.org limits its analysis to political aspects of the quadrant which is divided along horizontal economic lines and vertical social lines.  It is my contention that this vertical line, which is described as being the "social dimension" of politics, is possibly a linear arrangement of hierarchies, with dominator hierarchy emphasized at the upper range and value hierarchies emphasized on the lower.  I may be mistaken.

Whereas the horizontal line represents the economic dimension (i.e., communism on the left and capitalism on the right), the vertical line represents the social dimension (i.e., authoritarianism (fascism) on the top and libertarianism/anti-authoritarianism (liberalism/anarchism) on the bottom). This permits the entire range of political perspectives to be represented more accurately using today's scenario--which is no longer an economic division between the "haves" vs. the "have-nots" between peasants and queens & kings but is also a social division between dominator and value hierarchies. 

Broadly speaking, it appears that free-market capitalism promotes individual rights at the expense of the rights and needs of the collective (e.g. human rights) and at the expense of environmental concerns so is therefore somewhat geared toward the dominator hierarchies of premodern enthocentrism and fascism.  This is in spite of being modernist and objective and even postmodernist and pluralistic.  On the other hand, it could be argued the left promotes collectivism and social welfare at the expense of rewarding the "exceptionalism" of an individual's hard work and ability or a company's superior product.  Needless to say, a certain balance should be found between the two along the horizontal line.  However, given the global political landscape and the peak oil and environmental problem, I would say that American politicians and American voters have moved too far to the upper-right of free market capitalism and dangerously too close to authoritarianism/fascism to the point of suppressing dissent.  So much so, in fact, that the "true left" such as Nader or McKinney never are a political force in American politics.  We are therefore, in truth, a "one-party system" that is run by corporations and amber on the upper-right.  Those who are true progressives and liberals, in fact, have never been able to win the support of the American public unless they change their platform to conservative.  So in truth, it is not truly a "four-party system" nor even a two-party system in America but rather, a one-party system.

Which is precisely what Obama appears to have done by the looks of the "before" and "after" shot although by the world's standards, he was already a moderate conservative slightly right of center.  As you can see, during the primaries he was already right of center to be in competition with Hillary, who was even more right of center than he.  But by the time of the general election, he moved up two notches toward authoritarianism/fascism so as to be elected.  Yet I voted for him anyway in spite of preferring Nader as I felt that it was more important to ensure that the more fascist elements of conservativism be voted out of power.  Thus, "liberals" of America are perceived as "Moderate Conservatives" by the eyes of the rest of the developed world whereas the American "conservatives" are correctly seen as "Ultra Conservatives" bordering on fascist.

I find it interesting that most American politicians are located on the upper-right quadrant--even the Democrats.  This is due to the emphasis on free-market capitalism (right) and the amber element of social conservatism (top).  This combination reveals that most Americans are ideologically on the upper-right quadrant of the political compass.  In fact, according to the chart, Obama as well as McCain, Palin, Bush and even Hitler (!) are all located on the upper-right quadrant with Hitler being "top-center" which indicates the authoritarianism of fascism which is anti-intellectual so has a certain appeal to populists and less educated people.  Very few leaders are found on the left due to the fall of communism on the upper left and due to the emphasis on anti-authoritarianism, egalitarianism, anti-materialism, anti-capitalism, or amaterialism on the lower left, which tends to discourage political power.  Among the few listed on the lower left were Gandhi, Cynthia McKinney, and Ralph Nader. 

http://politicalcompass.org/analysis2

My chart:

(Image of chart where I am located to be posted...lost the URL for image so must re-take it the entire thing.  However, the numeric value is posted below).

(Please feel free in the meantime to share your results with me under "comments...."....(if you dare...I suspect that most would be too embarrassed...).  You needn't feel embarrassed to share the same quadrant as Hitler; many politicians do so).

My test results:

Economic Left/Right: -9.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.64

(from politicalcompass.org):

US Presidential Election 2008

This chart was constructed on the basis of the speeches, public statements and , crucially, the voting records of each of the candidates. During the election campaign, we'll be tweaking their positions as, inevitably, some of them change. We'll also be adding other charts as the campaign continues.

When examining the chart it's important to note that although most of the candidates seem quite different, in substance they occupy a relatively restricted area within the universal political spectrum. Democracies with a system of proportional representation give expression to a wider range of political views. While Cynthia McKinney and Ralph Nader are depicted on the extreme left in an American context, they would simply be mainstream social democrats within the wider political landscape of Europe. Similarly, Obama is popularly perceived as a leftist in the United States while elsewhere in the west his record is that of a moderate conservative. For example, in the case of the death penalty he is not an uncompromising abolitionist, while mainstream conservatives in all other western democracies are deeply opposed to capital punishment. The Democratic party's presidential candidate also reneged on his commitment to oppose the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. He sided with the ultra conservative bloc in the Supreme Court against the Washington DC handgun ban and for capital punishment in child rape cases. He supports President Bush's faith-based initiatives and is reported in Fortune to have said that NAFTA isn't so bad. Despite all this, some angry emailers tell us that Obama is a dangerous socialist who belongs on the extreme left of our chart. In an apparently close race, genuine leftists McKinney and Nader may attract sufficient votes from Obama to deliver McCain to the Oval Office.

Sarah Palin is popularly described by her detractors as an extreme right winger. In reality, she has some protectionist leanings. Her comparatively extreme positions are on the social rather than the economic scale. While her pro-gun, pro-Iraq invasion, anti-gay and anti- abortion positions are applauded in some quarters, Joe Six-pack may not be quite so enamoured with what Palin's denominational website, the General Council of the Assemblies of God, has to say:

One of Palin's evangelical supporters reminded us that Obama's background was as a mere community organiser. Well yes, but so was Jesus, while Pontius Pilate was a governor.

One present difficulty in positioning the candidates concerns the nationalisation of investment banks. While a commitment to universal healthcare shifts the candidate to the left, what are we to make of tax-payer funded corporate healthcare ? The United States seems to be in the throes of a unique political formula: socialism for some corporations and private enterprise for most individuals.

The Libertarians' choice of diehard conservative Bob Barr is particularly odd. Their party is now led by an anti-choice enthusiast for the death penalty who initially supported the Patriot Act, though later regretted it. He is also pro teacher-led prayers. While Libertarians tend to place more importance on economic matters, Barr has nevertheless not displayed unbridled enthusiasm for free trade, although he ticks most of the right boxes on matters of taxation and public spending.

For those who are interested, we include here our earlier chart showing most of the candidates from the Primaries. Observant readers will notice shifts in the positions of Biden, Obama and McCain.

(Lower-left quadrant, "Social Libertarian," therefore happy to know that I share the same quadrant as Mandela, Gandhi, Cynthia McKinney, Noam Chomsky, and Ralph Nader.  International plot found below; plot of U.S. politicians to be posted).

(Please note that "Libertarian" on the lower quadrants does not refer specifically to the American concepts of "Libertarian" but refers more broadly to modern and postmodern forms of liberalism (progressivism) based on worldcentric and kosmocentric principles.  Because they are modern or postmodern, they tend to be either secular or spiritual in nature.  Therefore the lower quadrants differ somewhat from the upper quadrants which, because of their emphasis on authority appear to be pre-modern forms of traditionalism based on ethnocentric principles arising out of myth and religion).

About The Political Compass™

In the introduction, we explained the inadequacies of the traditional left-right line.

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.

Both an economic dimension and a social dimension are important factors for a proper political analysis. By adding the social dimension you can show that Stalin was an authoritarian leftist (ie the state is more important than the individual) and that Gandhi, believing in the supreme value of each individual, is a liberal leftist. While the former involves state-imposed arbitary collectivism in the extreme top left, on the extreme bottom left is voluntary collectivism at regional level, with no state involved. Hundreds of such anarchist communities exisited in Spain during the civil war period

You can also put Pinochet, who was prepared to sanction mass killing for the sake of the free market, on the far right as well as in a hardcore authoritarian position. On the non-socialist side you can distinguish someone like Milton Friedman, who is anti-state for fiscal rather than social reasons, from Hitler, who wanted to make the state stronger, even if he wiped out half of humanity in the process.

The chart also makes clear that, despite popular perceptions, the opposite of fascism is not communism but anarchism (ie liberal socialism), and that the opposite of communism ( i.e. an entirely state-planned economy) is neo-liberalism (i.e. extreme deregulated economy)

The usual understanding of anarchism as a left wing ideology does not take into account the neo-liberal "anarchism" championed by the likes of Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and America's Libertarian Party, which couples social Darwinian right-wing economics with liberal positions on most social issues. Often their libertarian impulses stop short of opposition to strong law and order positions, and are more economic in substance (ie no taxes) so they are not as extremely libertarian as they are extremely right wing. On the other hand, the classical libertarian collectivism of anarcho-syndicalism ( libertarian socialism) belongs in the bottom left hand corner.

In our home page we demolished the myth that authoritarianism is necessarily "right wing", with the examples of Robert Mugabe, Pol Pot and Stalin. Similarly Hitler, on an economic scale, was not an extreme right-winger. His economic policies were broadly Keynesian, and to the left of some of today's Labour parties. If you could get Hitler and Stalin to sit down together and avoid economics, the two diehard authoritarians would find plenty of common ground.

U.S.neo-conservatives, with their commitment to high military spending and the global assertion of national values, tend to be more authoritarian than hard right. By contrast, neo-liberals, opposed to such moral leadership and, more especially, the ensuing demands on the tax payer, belong to a further right but less authoritarian region. Paradoxically, the "free market", in neo-con parlance, also allows for the large-scale subsidy of the military-industrial complex, a considerable degree of corporate welfare, and protectionism when deemed in the national interest. These are viewed by neo-libs as impediments to the unfettered market forces that they champion.

A diverse professional team has assessed the words and actions of internationally known contemporary leaders to give you an idea of how they relate to each other on the political compass.

We regret the present exclusion of some major leaders, especially in the developing world. This is due to our inability so far to contact independent experts.

A great deal of effort lies behind the development of The Political Compass, and the realisation of it in practical form. It has occasionally come to our attention that other sites have tried to exploit our work by copying it, adopting our name, or linking to us in a dishonest fashion.

If you should come across any such sites, please let us know, so that we can take appropriate action.

A few critics believe that we should blow with prevailing political winds and narrow the actual parameters. Please see our FAQ 21.

Thanks from the Political Compass team.

US Primaries 2008

A few words about "The Extreme Right", and a look at the parties in England's local elections

ICONOCHASMS: How well do you know your political icons ?