Candidates on the Political compass

[LWolf]

How many DUers support a candidate who is in the same general range on the political compass? Placement for '07 primary candidates is out:



I fall further to the south left than any of the candidates; about as left as Gandhi, but a little to his south. I'm supporting Dennis Kucinich, the "typical social democrat."

Here are some interesting comments about the political compass from the site:

<snip>

Please keep in mind that The Political Compass is a universal tool, reflecting the full spectrum of political thought, and applicable to all democracies. US politics are generally fought within a more confined space. While in mainstream America, Clinton, for example, may be seen as left leaning, in the overall political landscape, she is a moderate conservative. Someone like Kucinich, while seen by his severest opponents as an extreme left winger, would qualify as a typical social democrat in a European context.

There is a detailed analysis of the quadrants here:

http://politicalcompass.jpagel.net/analysis2

and a look at leaders outside the U.S., as well:



And a couple of FAQ/responses:

<snip>

# 20. You've got liberals on the right. Don't you know they're left ?

This response is exclusively American. Elsewhere neo-liberalism is understood in standard political science terminology - deriving from mid 19th Century Manchester Liberalism, which campaigned for free trade on behalf of the capitalist classes of manufacturers and industrialists. In other words, laissez-faire or economic libertarianism.

In the United States, "liberals" are understood to believe in leftish economic programmes such as welfare and publicly funded medical care, while also holding liberal social views on matters such as law and order, peace, sexuality, women's rights etc. The two don't necessarily go together.

Our Compass rightly separates them. Otherwise, how would you label someone like the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan who, on the one hand, pleased the left by supporting strong economic safety nets for the underprivileged, but angered social liberals with his support for the Vietnam War, the Cold War and other key conservative causes ?


# 20. Politics have moved, but you're still using the old economic parameters.

Some critics have argued that, because the universal political centre has moved to the right, our axes should correspondingly move to the right. This, however, would not indicate how far one way or the other society has shifted. It could not convey paradoxes such as the fact that, in the UK, New Labour occupies an economic position to the right of pre-Thatcher Conservatives. Where was the centre, for example, in Apartheid South Africa ? In Third Reich society, such a skewed analysis might show a Nazi opposed to the death chambers as representing liberal opinion.

Narrowing the standard political goalposts to accommodate merely the range of mainstream opinion within any given society at a given time is not only historically uninstructive; it is unscientific.

http://politicalcompass.jpagel.net/faq

[Caution]

1. My scores:

Economic Left/Right: -8.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -8.67

I'll support whichever Democrat takes the nomination. Right now I'm leaning towards Clinton/Obama/Edwards

We simply cannot afford to lose another election and potentially lose another seat on the SCOTUS. 2004 was a disaster when Bush retained the Presidency and was able to install Alito and Roberts. I honestly and firmly believe that our freedoms (those that are left) hang in the balance.

To answer your question as to why I'm not supporting Kucinich or Gravel. Neither one of them has a snowball's chance in Death Valley of winning the nomination much less a national election. When Kucinich stops with the new agey woo-woo crap and the conspiracy nuttery , maybe I'll consider him as as serious candidate.

As for Mike Gravel. Please. 1 in 20 Democrats don't even know who he is, nevermind the general electorate.

[LWolf]

3. Your response is classic.

The classic reason the Democratic Party is having such difficulty even with a majority.

Just my pov, but I don't understand how people can skip blithely past the issues to focus on electability, can be willing to elect candidates so far from the classic liberal democrat, and call it a WIN. We "won" last November, and look what's happening in Congress the last few days.

Why are more Democratic primary candidates not in the position of the classic social democrat?

It is our shame, again in my opinion, that candidates closest to our actual position on issues are unknown, ignored, marginalized, and skipped over. With your scores in the -8s, you are yourself quite a bit further to the left than either Gravel or Kucinich.

I personally don't think that center-left social democrats are "unelectable." I think we make them that way by buying into right-wing, corporate media spin, and abandoning them in our run to the right. All we have to do for them to be electable is put issues back at the top of the list of voting criteria, where they belong.

[Caution]

9. My response is pragmatic and practical.

I'm tired of the notion that to hold left wing political views must make one less than honest about the fact that in this country, at this time, the public will NEVER vote for someone like Kucinich.

That may be the fault of the media, or it may be that the average american has slanted more to the right or that the average American has become so jaded by our nasty politics that they have simply disengaged.

Regardless of the reason, I am putting my support to whatever Democratic candidate can actually win a national election.

When Kucinich actually shows me that he should be taken seriously, that he can raise the money that is required (regardless of whether that is a sign of a healthy political system it is REALITY, something Kucinich and his supporters seem to be unable to understand), that he can get the medua to take him seriously and that he can actually poll more than the flat, sub 10% of Democratic voters that he has polled for the last 5 years, I might consider supporting him. But only, if he actually embraces science and moves away from the woo-woo nuttery he constantly embraces.

I focus on electability for one reason and one reason only. The SCOTUS is packed with young, ideologically rigid right wingers. This is a disaster waiting to happen.. If I have to vote for Hillary Clinton to protect a woman's right to choose among many other issues that will soon come before the court I will do so and I will do so PROUDLY. I'll be honored to have her as my President if she gets the nomination, as I will be honored to have Edwards, Obama, Biden, etc. Any of the candidates who actually can win an election.

Put two more nutjobs on the bench and the great experiment is over. If a Republican wins, my house goes up for sale. I'll take a centrist like the other Democratic candidates over that eventuality any day.

[LWolf]

11. All you've said is so well explained,

pronounced, repeated, it's almost canon law to those who espouse it. You really don't have to explain it to me, yet again. I didn't post the compass because I couldn't find anyone to lecture me on the "electable," "pragmatic" point of view for the nth time.

I posted the compass because I'm curious about the following; can you answer any of them?

1. Why are all the "top tier" "electable/corporate" candidates in the upper right quadrant? Why does the "Democratic" party have any candidates in that quadrant at all? Why are we not fielding actual "centrists," as well as more people slightly to the left of center? It's not like Kucinich and Gravel are the only Democrats who would fall in that quadrant.

2. Why are classic liberal democratic positions considered "unelectable" or less than "pragmatic," since you brought it up. Are you saying that we have to be right of center to "win?"

3. Do most democrats really belong in that upper-right quadrant on the issues? If so, why is there any pretense about the Democratic Party having anything to do at all with the "left?" If not, why does the majority of the party vote against their own positions?

4. How does voting against our positions, for a supposedly "electable" candidate that represents positions so far from our own, constitute "winning" anything? What makes a candidate that actually matches us on issues or position "unelectable," if we decide he/she IS electable, and cast our votes accordingly? Is it really "pragmatism," or is it the same kind of caving or complicity we are seeing in Congress? How can we expect our reps in Congress to behave differently than their platforms, or to act with more courage than we do at the polls?

Can you answer or discuss any of these points? Please jump in if you can. I mean that sincerely. Don't bother, though, if you just want to deliver another lecture on "electability," and being "pragmatic."

I want to talk about the condition, direction, and future of the Democratic Party based upon the way people are voting. I'm not here in this thread to attack or defend specific candidates. I can do that on almost any other thread in this forum, lol.

[Caution]

13. My answers to your questions. I speak only for my own opinions obviously

Why are all the "top tier" "electable/corporate" candidates in the upper right quadrant? Why does the "Democratic" party have any candidates in that quadrant at all? Why are we not fielding actual "centrists," as well as more people slightly to the left of center? It's not like Kucinich and Gravel are the only Democrats who would fall in that quadrant.

This is of course more than one question. Firstly I disagree with the premise that any of the Democratic candidates are necessarily "corporate." This is the same crap that Nader ran on in 2000/2004 and is just as false today as it was then. The better question is why didn't any of the leftist candidates choose to run. Where are they? Name one. Kucinich is not viable because he comes off as a nutjob to the vast majority of Americans. They think he is a joke. Whether or not he deserves to be viewed this way is immaterial. The Democratic Party isn't a group of 8 people sitting in a room saying "who runs this election cycle?" It's a wide group with hundreds of gradations of issue stances. It's for this reason that we traditionally have trouble with the right wing who are more unified and more monolithic in policy. Why aren't you running? Leftists aren't running because they don't have the money to run. It's that simple.

2. Why are classic liberal democratic positions considered "unelectable" or less than "pragmatic," since you brought it up. Are you saying that we have to be right of center to "win?

Again this is a question where the whole premise is incorrect. Why is it that only unelectable leftists are running? I'm saying that Dennis Kucinich is unelectable. Not that leftist candidates are. Projecting Dennis Kucinich onto all leftists is both an insult to them and to him. Mike Gravel has no base, a terrible campaign and no campaign staff capable of mounting a serious campaign. Electability is not just about being attractive or well-spoken, it is also about being able to generate support at all levels within the party. Are you a precinct captain? If not, why? Only when leftists actually organize within the party on any meaningful level can we hope to elect a candidate. Ever been to a Green party meeting or convention? I have, and unfortunately the vast majority of these people are all talk and no action. They do not have any clue how to run a successful campaign and any time you make a suggestion they attack you for being 'corporatist' or for being a part of the political 'establishment.'

3. Do most democrats really belong in that upper-right quadrant on the issues? If so, why is there any pretense about the Democratic Party having anything to do at all with the "left?" If not, why does the majority of the party vote against their own positions?

Where is it written in the Democratic Party platform that they are leftist? I don't pretend that the Democratic Party is a leftist party. It is not. It is centrist in nature and has been drifting that way since the days of FDR. If you want the party to be more leftist than you need to work towards organizing within the party structure. Otherwise good luck with the few leftist parties currently in this country. See my previous answer for what amounts to the only true leftist party in the US. The Green Party is a joke, A worthless, unorganized, inconsistent, underfunded and horribly organized excuse for a political party.

I personally would rather a centrist party than an extremist party like the GOP has become.

4. How does voting against our positions, for a supposedly "electable" candidate that represents positions so far from our own, constitute "winning" anything? What makes a candidate that actually matches us on issues or position "unelectable," if we decide he/she IS electable, and cast our votes accordingly? Is it really "pragmatism," or is it the same kind of caving or complicity we are seeing in Congress? How can we expect our reps in Congress to behave differently than their platforms, or to act with more courage than we do at the polls?

It constitutes achieving the lesser of two evils. Nader in 2000 showed us what happens when the leftists vote for a candidate closer to their ideology. The Republican party controls 30% of our population completely. they will ALWAYS support the far right. Leftists constitute no more than 20% of the US population. The rest are independents, centrists, unaffiliated leftists who have disengaged etc. So we attempt to sway people away from the far right. I'd much rather Clinton than Romney or Giuliani. How about you?

As for the second part of this question, I answered it above, but I'll answer it again. It isn't that leftists are unelectable. It is that the ones currently running are unelectable. Anyone who actually does some reading about Kucinich and looks deeper into the legislation he proposes will see that he is your typical new agey type. This does not sit well with almost all of the American electorate, particularly people like me who feel that science has made life vastly better and that to turn away from it is to invite disaster into our lives. I will not EVER support DK.

Under what circumstance is the way one votes "complicity" or "pragmatism"? I would argue that voting for someone like Nader is a much worse example of complicity because it guarantees that someone like Bush gets elected. This is far worse than voting for someone like Gore who is a centrist. As for Democrats caving in Congress, this has now happened exactly twice this year. If Bush pushes through only 2 of his agenda items in a full year, I would call that a HUGE victory over what happened in the previous SIX years. If you honestly thought that we would take a majority and all of a sudden we would see the tax cuts wiped out, the war ended and Bush impeached, I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell you. The political process is and always has been very slow. How long did the US revolution take? How long did it take FDR to hammer through the New Deal even in the midst of economic disaster? We want a leftist agenda to take hold. It is going to take DECADES. Even if we elected a true leftist to the Presidency, s/he would be a lame duck immediately because we don't have even close to a leftist majority in either house in Congress and we have an extreme right-wing SCOTUS.

[LWolf]

14. In all of that, I think you can narrow it down to this one thing:

"Leftists aren't running because they don't have the money to run. It's that simple."

Why don't they have the money to run? Because the corporations won't fund them, and the rank and file voters are afraid to support someone without the big money backing because the whole election process is financially corrupt.

I'm not sure what Nader has to do with Democratic candidates, so I'll pass on that one.

On second thought, after finishing the rest of the post below, I've popped back in; perhaps many in that lower left quadrant see Nader as a viable option when the Democratic Party doesn't give them one? I know that many dems tend to immediate, visceral, rabid reactions at the mention of Nader. If the loss of the votes from that lower left quadrant bothers them, why aren't they working harder to nominate a candidate at least closer to the center? Or is that logic just too simple for politics? It's somehow more effective to tell a whole quadrant of voters to "fuck off" for not jumping the center line? Can the party no longer discern between Nader and the voters, many of them Democrats, in that quadrant?

It's probably irrelevant whether or not you would ever vote for DK or Gravel. They are the only left-leaning candidates on the ticket. I have voted, and will vote again for DK, since I consider his platform and record superior to the rest. I'm not likely to vote for "the lesser of two evils." I'm more likely to vote for what I consider to be the best choice, and allow the "evils" to rest on the shoulders of those who voted for them, lesser or greater.

I won't say NEVER, though, because I've already spent a few decades on "the lesser of two evils." I haven't been pleased with the results, which is why I've backed off of that plan. Not to say that I won't compromise; every vote is a compromise of one sort or another. In real life, I work well with conservatives of all stripes. I've had to, having spent most of my life in republican strongholds.

So I'll say that I'm not likely to vote for those on the right, especially the authoritarian right, when I have other choices, and I AM more likely to work on getting more left-leaning candidates on ballots everywhere, and to support them when they appear.

[Caution]

15. Response...

Leftists don't have the money to run because they generally refuse to actually participate fully in the fundraising process. Leftists tend to become disaffected with the political process in this country because it requires large amounts of money and ever since the rise of communism, leftists have been associated with anti-capitalism for whatever stupid reason. The Greens are a good example of this. They actually shun political fund-raising on any meaningful level. I brought up Nader because he, more-so than any candidate currently running most closely matches my own personal political beliefs. I didn't vote for him because I didn't want the disaster that Bush was. I couldn't convince some leftist friends in Florida either. We don't get along anymore.

Corporations don't fund presidential candidates in this country. That's a myth. Individuals who are associated with corporations do. I currently work for a company affiliated with the health care industry. Many people in my company are terrified of national health care. I'm in favor of it and am politically active towards achieving it. My fellow employees will donate money to candidates against nationalized healthcare specifically for their own selfish interests (we'd likely go out of business if this came to pass...I'd get a new job...). I donate money to candidates as the process continues. I donated what I could to Dean early on in 04. I donated more than I could afford to Kerry when he won the nomination.

You are making a mistake in assuming that the quadrants in the political compass actually represent a proportional distribution across the US population. In the US most people fall into the upper right. We are a small minority in this country. I, as a social anarchist, am really outside of the mainstream. As a pragmatist, I can engage on what I feel is a meaningful level though.

Democrats can win without the extreme left/libertarian quadrant. They cannot win if they pander to that element, as much as I wish they could.

When it comes time to vote for the Presidency, I hope you decide to vote for the Democrat, whomever that might be of the current crop of primary candidates. Any one of them will be vastly superior to any of the GOP candidates.

[LWolf]

16. There is much to ponder in what you say.

As far as the general election goes, I am currently undecided.

I'm taking off for a few days for work out of my area, and will be offline until late this week, so I'll have to end here by thanking you for your thoughts.

[Caution]

17. And I thank you for not jumping down my throat!

Far to often on DU these days, comments that don't move lock step with a certain ideology result in insults and ignorant responses.

I respect and understand their POV, I wish they could do the same. I thank you for showing me that respect.

[jmp]

10. Mine are pretty predictable ...

As a former GOPer who has slowly drifted towards the left ...

Economic Left/Right: -2.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -0.72

My score back in 2004 was ...

Economic Left/Right: 1.00
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.41

That's pretty nice grouping if you ask me. :)

[LWolf]

12. That's a drift from

center-right to center-left, but still pretty consistent with sticking close to the center. Personally, I think that's a healthy fluctuation. The center is reasonable and consistent, if it can swing enough to keep it from being stagnant.

I'm way left and south, but, to be honest, I think that is a reaction. It's just me, in all areas of life, not just politics. If you push me, I push back. If you pull me, I pull back. I resist being dragged along with a group, I resist following the direction of others, and I resist being made to do anything I didn't choose myself. Politically, when the world is tilted far right, I'm going to tilt far left. The farther to the right the SS U.S. goes, the farther to the left I'm going to run. It sounds funny, but I honestly believe that my extreme left leanings are an act of balance, and that if we tilted too far left, I'd start moving to the center.

I'm probably the only person in the nation who sees leftists as providing the balast that keeps the ship from capsizing and sinking, lol.

[maximusveritas]

2. This is ridiculous

The questions are so vague and the site doesn't tell you what answers they put down for each candidate, so it's really just worthless.
My guess is that the site owner is a Kucinich fan.

[LWolf]

4. It's a UK site.

Here is a background <snip>:

The idea was developed by a political journalist with a university counselling background, assisted by a professor of social history. They're indebted to people like Wilhelm Reich and Theodor Adorno for their ground-breaking work in this field. We believe that, in an age of diminishing ideology, a new generation in particular will get a better idea of where they stand politically - and the sort of political company they keep.

Read the left-hand column, and you will see that the U.S. is simply one of several political arenas included.

For more about his political analysis of his own country, as well as a comparison with the U.S. political picture (there is nothing there about DK:)

http://www.politicalcompass.org/extremeright

I don't have a problem with comparing my country, politically, with the rest of the world. I can see how some would take it badly, if that comparison reflects poorly on our politics.

[maximusveritas]

5. Ok, but it doesn't say how they came up with the answers

for each candidate, other than pure subjective guesswork.

[LWolf]

6. There are several pages of information,

explanation, and a whole page of FAQ. Help yourself!

[maximusveritas]

7. I see, so you don't know either?

I looked through the FAQ and info and found nothing. If you find anything, let me know.

[LWolf]

8. I know it's there.

Maybe not in the detail you are looking for, though. I just didn't want to go diving for you, lol.

This is what it says on the U.S. '04 page:

We've scrutinised the statements and, more tellingly, the voting records of the hopefuls of some of the parties, in response to requests from many of our American visitors. If you're unhappy because a particular candidate isn't included, spare a thought for the rest of the world who don't have a Political Compass chart for any of their national figures yet ! And please, don't even mention the vice presidential candidates !

Within the United States , of course, real (and imagined) differences between the mainstream candidates are more greatly magnified. However, compared to other western democracies, especially those with a finely-tuned system of proportional representation, most mainstream political activity in the US is concentrated over a more narrow ideological range. We note too that conservative Democrats tend to have more in common with Republicans than with the liberals within their own ranks.

It uses public statements and voting records, according to the positions as detailed in the analysis. I don't think you can get closer than that.

Remember that they are using a global compass, not a compass centered on the U.S. by itself. It might be instructive to look at some of the other regional compasses they post. Personally, I find that last sentence, about conservative Democrats, to be accurate.

[penguin7]

18. Look at this link

I haven't studied the methodology, but I think it is pretty simple based on the issues.

http://www.2decide.com/table.htm

[Duppers]

19. another version of your table

http://flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=868063604&size=o

[MH1]

20. Link to candidate analysis?

Your links don't seem to give the actual numbers for the candidates. Am I looking at the wrong thing?

www.ontheissues.org shows something rather different. (scroll to the bottom of each candidate's page for a graph)