Pain in the Compass

Okay, Blue Dog's already checked back in: he's not going to give the Political Compass another spin. I'm disappointed a bit, though I suspected (hoping differently) he'd so answer, that he was uninterested in approaching anew that site's series of social-political statements. I was also afraid I might have ruffled that dog's feathers a bit, but that's not the case. Let's put him back on the soapbox – c'mon, boy; up!

Perhaps you misunderstand my answers. I see no second set of answers possible in responding to these questions.

Let us look at [Republican] Ron Paul (not my candidate by the way, just an example). He is utterly opposes abortion. Nevertheless, he also takes the position that as a matter of the United States Constitution, abortion as a matter of law is a non-federal issue left to the states. If you examine Ron Paul's stated positions, I expect that you will find he falls much further toward the libertarian side of the graph than is reflected by his actual placed position among the 2008 Presidential candidates.

Now if you ask me whether abortion, when the woman's life is not threatened, should always be illegal, I say yes. I see no other possible answer given my belief that human life is sacred and that a fetus is a human life. This statement may simplify my position, but after struggling with the issue, I see no other possible response.

(I told Dog in my response to this email that I intend to address this specific issue, and how I as a very liberal, feminist male – yet fully obedient, submissive son of the Church – come down. Likely I'll do so in January… though I may just jump in sooner.)

As another example, your own position places you quite near Gandhi. But ask yourself if someone were to examine your life, would they place you next to Gandhi on the chart. And I do not ask this question in an attempt to question your answers to the questions or the way you live your life.

Dog, my friend, the tool/test does not attempt to graphically place people by overall lifestyle. Rather, it's a look at the person's placement strictly along their social/political/economic outlook. Spiritual-practice-wise, I'd fall more closely to Pope Benedict than to Mahatma-ji. But if we each filled out political ballots (yes, I'd let him go first), I doubt we'd vote in the same slate of candidates.

Now, let us look at your friend Spartacus. He's as socially aware as Gandhi and deep into anarchist territory. I have no problem with his answers. I do not challenge the sincerity of his response. But if the person who put together this test wanted to place him on the chart without first having him take the test, how would this person accomplish that task?

Does Spartacus have a job? Does he pay his taxes? Does he obey most traffic laws? Is he married? Does he support his children? How much does he give away to charities? Has he accumulated any wealth? Does he live the life of an ascetic?

What I am saying is this test judges the world leaders by outside, objective standards. How does Hillary Clinton vote in the Senate? Then it judges us by how we answer the questions on this test.

Of course the big figures in their results-matrix did not take the test themselves, so the authors had to do some conjecture… but are not doing this placement uneducatedly. As they explain on the result-page, "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." Again, this is political placement, not overall lifestyle; this is political analysis. Oh, well; say on.

Do any of us really live the life of Gandhi? To be honest, I suspect that you may be closer than I to Gandhi. [Gee, thanks, Blue – but you've never seen me in a dhoti.] And I don't know Spartacus well enough to judge. But I know that I have not devoted my life to the poor. I'm your basic businessman who is raising two children, hitting church on Sundays, going to California Coastal Cleanup Day tomorrow with a bunch from my church, working a carwash later in the day for the Church Middle School Group, meeting a young man tomorrow to talk about his future, the kind of mundane, routine things we all do in this life. I give what I can, do what I can, but I definitely do not make the sort of choices in life that would have a neutral third-party put me next to the Dalai Lama or Gandhi after examining my life.

On another note, I suspect most Democratic candidates actually, as they have stated, bitterly oppose to the war. Yet time and again they have voted to fund the war. If a anti-war individual took this test, their answers would reflect their anti-war values. But we would judge Hillary Clinton, etc., on their votes? Or would we judge them on their stated position?

Good point.

What I think is much more interesting is where they place the parties. We see a much deeper spread. For example, the UK Green party cuddles up to Dalai Lama territory. Why? They place the parties on the scale based on their written, articulated positions.

Now, let us examine George W. Bush. With respect to the removal of life support from patients in a persistent vegetative state, his stated position is strongly opposed (and presumably this would track his test answers). But in 1999, he signed Texas legislation permitting doctors to remove life support from such patients regardless of the wishes of the family. Do we go by the stated position of George W. Bush (as we do with our own answers) or do we judge George W. Bush by his actions?

If we look at the historical record, how many figures do we actually find in the Libertarian/Left Quadrant? We find Dalai Llama, Gandhi, (Christ, I suspect, though they do not place him), and Nelson Mandela.

If we asked Nelson Mandela where he stood on economic globalization, I suspect he would favor people over corporations. But when he talks about blood diamonds in the context of that recent film and says, "...it would be deeply regrettable if the making of the film inadvertently obscured the truth, and, as a result, led the world to believe that an appropriate response might be to cease buying mined diamonds from Africa.... We hope that the desire to tell a gripping and important real life historical story will not result in the destabilization of African diamond producing countries, and ultimately their peoples." If we argue that his statement is because lost revenue hurts the diamond mine economy, can we not make that argument in every instance?

In the end, it is an interesting test. But I don't have the same level of faith in it. I need to see if I can find some old threads on it. As I recall, pretty much everyone taking the test ends up at one extreme or another.

No, I didn't end up at any kind of extreme. Given the layout of their matrix, I think "extreme" would be any individual at the far end, left/right or up/down, one of the axes: i.e., not embracing anything beyond a total authoritarian/anarchistic social focus, or/and a total left/right economic focus. These individuals are rare even among demagogs, I'll bet.

The matrix shows that Pope Benedict and I fall differently in terms of authoritarianism – but it's Stalin who's at a far end of the matrix; and overall His Holiness is placed more closely to the middle than I am, in fact; not a surprise to me. And everybody's favorite acephalic chimpanzee, George II, is at an extreme… but at Stalin's opposite? Well, okay; for Uncle Joe the State was supreme, whereas W seems to favor a smaller state… thereby corporations run free, wild, and unhindered.

I responded to Blue Dog, with hopes he and his own people will have at the concept further at his own blog; they a lot more capable and experienced:

Well… I misunderstood your explanation of how you approached the questions/statements. Though your skepticism runs strongly on Political Compass's tool, could you consider maybe dropping it in on one of your own bloggings, and see how your own readers (far more of them than mine, and a good deal less flaky [pardon me there, Spartacus], in all likelihood) fare with the questions, both in how the results paint them, and how they feel about it?

If you take up the topic (and I think it would be a shame if you don't), do please not hold back on expressing your feelings on its accuracy and usefulness, short of preprogramming your keen masses out there in advance of their trying it out themselves.

You're quite free, of course, to quote or reference Empty Tomb in any way you might need – though I doubt it would raise the level of dialog on Blue Dog Thoughts! While I'm muttering to myself in a corner, you're sitting at a long, well-lit table, with organized stations of notepads, water pitchers, and attentive attendees, and dressed in a smart suit and speaking clearly and resonantly. There are no Frisbees.

Likely, as with all tools, this one's not for every mechanic. I can put impressive holes in the drywall with a good drop-forged steel chisel, the next person will carve out a "David", and the next yet will use it to mug a passing grandmother, and yet another lay it on the desk as a paperweight.

Regards,

AgingChild

We'll see how the Compass fares there; ditto, I'll have Mouse's take, when and if. Now, back to Pius.