Political Compass Thread

[MaxOfMetal]

I never read it as outright "right = racist", but more of a right = more interested in systems than people.

Right wing politics is founded on the idea that caste systems exist and are both natural and proper. Left wing politics is based on the concept of equality.

The "left" and "right" comes from the French Revolution, where those on the right were for the monarchy and those on the left were for reform.

Which is to say, when someone identifies themselves or others it rarely follows the classical concepts.

So yeah, if we're getting technical, being right wing supports a system of inequality, which racism can be an example.

I'd never say that anyone right leaning is automatically racist in a burning crosses on the front lawn sense, but if they know what they're talking about, they're at least amenable to the concept that not all people are equal.

 

[TedEH]

I get what you mean. I'm sure it's that way for some people. I know my view of people tends to be naive - I try to leave room for people to hold whatever views without assuming malice.

 

[ElRay]

I think the questions have a kind of Left encouraging bias in terms of how they’re worded.

If you talk to to US Conservatives, reality has a rather pronounced liberal bias. Our Left is still right of center compared to the rest of the world.

 

[Drew]

I never read it as outright "right = racist", but more of a right = more interested in systems than people.

I'm not going to make any claims that this has historically always been the case...

...but in America, a conscious racial dog-whistling strategy has been part of Republican politics since Richard Nixon's Southern strategy. Talking about "law and order" and "states rights" rather than about segregation and disenfranchising minority voters, etc.

I'm not going to quote it directly here for reasons that should become abundantly clear once you start reading, but scroll down and read Lee Atwater's off-the-record hot mic explanation of what the term "Southern strategy" means, in the "Evolution (1970s and 80s) heading, for a crystal-clear explanation on why the right wing of American politics is frequently accused of being deeply racist.

 

[TedEH]

Yeah, I understand that. I've seen that quote before too, I'm sure. Granted, I'm not in the US and I think our version of racism is different (not non-existent, just different) - and I know I tend to frame things naively. I know it's not realistic, but that naive framing makes it a lot easier to deal with how many people probably believe some pretty terrible things about their fellow man. Part of me would like to reserve some room for the idea that while none of what you're saying is false, there are some people out there who fall into that political category but are also looking at things that naively.

I mean, it still amounts to "right = doesn't really care about people" one way or another, I guess.

 

[Drew]

Yeah, I understand that. I've seen that quote before too, I'm sure. Granted, I'm not in the US and I think our version of racism is different (not non-existent, just different) - and I know I tend to frame things naively. I know it's not realistic, but that naive framing makes it a lot easier to deal with how many people probably believe some pretty terrible things about their fellow man. Part of me would like to reserve some room for the idea that while none of what you're saying is false, there are some people out there who fall into that political category but are also looking at things that naively.

I mean, it still amounts to "right = doesn't really care about people" one way or another, I guess.

I think that's definitely part of it, to be fair.

But, there are two additional things I'd say:
1) if a set of policies is designed with the explicit goal of perpetuating a racist structure, and you happen to support that same set of policies for some other reason having nothing to do with race... can you really dissasociate yourself from the intent (however covert) of those policies? Or do you need to take ownership of the fact that, however these policies may help you, it's at the direct expense of a different demographic group?
2) I think the evolution of a lot of contemporary "conservative" politics in America as having been borne from explicitly racist goals is pretty clear. I think maybe it gets a little less clear - and this could be my own unfamiliarity - in other countries.... but it's not like other countries haven't had their own racist histories, and that kind of gets back to point 1. If you're in favor of zero tolerance drug policies, aggressive policing and sentencing policies, school choice programs, etc (rhetorical you, not you specifically), and you're NOT American... how do you defend those positions when you look to America and see where, and why, those policies came from? What doubly complicates this is the amount of international clout America has, and how we made things like the War on Drugs and the War on Terror, both of which have strong racial undercurrents, global crusades.

At the end of the day, I think a lot of conservative politics can be distilled to "screw you, I got mine, you look after yourself." But I also think it's not a coincidence that this is a conversation we're having in a country that's long been overwhelmingly white, is still majority white, but as a country that's long held itself as a land where immigrants can make a new life for itself from the humblest of beginnings, is less white than it used to be.

 

[Xaios]

I took this test roughly 10 years and was planted firmly in the center of auth-right. Now...

And they say that people get more conservative as they grow older.

 

[TedEH]

I think that's definitely part of it, to be fair.

But, there are two additional things I'd say: [etc]

I don't disagree with you at all, generally speaking, but on some level I don't think that very many consider those views that deeply. I think that those who follow politics and get into discussions about them do - they think about the history and the purpose behind a particular political stance - but I don't think the average person (who isn't very politically minded, or has a strong understanding of history, etc) go much farther than "does that idea make some vague sense to me?".

I'd like to say that I think more people DO consider history or look to America or whatever other source of an idea might be.... but that just wouldn't be true. In my experience, most people don't know their history, don't understand the intent or source of the ideas they're presented with, etc. which is both good and bad. Bad because maybe people should know better, but maybe a little bit good, because (if I'm right) I can at least say I don't have a reason to attribute malice to most people.

 

[Drew]

I don't disagree with you at all, generally speaking, but on some level I don't think that very many consider those views that deeply. I think that those who follow politics and get into discussions about them do - they think about the history and the purpose behind a particular political stance - but I don't think the average person (who isn't very politically minded, or has a strong understanding of history, etc) go much farther than "does that idea make some vague sense to me?".

Well, it's like that old history joke.

"What do you call people who maybe didn't agree with Hitler on race, but voted for him because they really liked his economic policies?"
"Nazis."
"No, not the ones who supported gassing Jews, but the ones who just wanted to see inflation return to normal and see their fellow countryman have good jobs"
"Nazis."
"No, not the ones who supported concentration camps. The ones who just went along with him because they thought the Treaty of Versailles was too burdensome, and that Germany was unable to support itself unless the terms of peace after the Great War were changed."
Yeah. We call them Nazis."

One of the challenges in representative democracy is that you don't really get to pick and choose which policies you support from a party - if you put one party in power, they're going to implement their full agenda, or as much of it as they can. If someone doesn't understand the full implications of an agenda, but supports it anyway, they still own the outcome of that agenda so long as they continue to support it.

 

[Mathemagician]

I don't disagree with you at all, generally speaking, but on some level I don't think that very many consider those views that deeply. I think that those who follow politics and get into discussions about them do - they think about the history and the purpose behind a particular political stance - but I don't think the average person (who isn't very politically minded, or has a strong understanding of history, etc) go much farther than "does that idea make some vague sense to me?".

I'd like to say that I think more people DO consider history or look to America or whatever other source of an idea might be.... but that just wouldn't be true. In my experience, most people don't know their history, don't understand the intent or source of the ideas they're presented with, etc. which is both good and bad. Bad because maybe people should know better, but maybe a little bit good, because (if I'm right) I can at least say I don't have a reason to attribute malice to most people.

You are absolutely right that the average person is “lazy” intellectually when it comes to voting and using their voice.

However, each person is still responsible for their own laziness.

As an example of not thinking too deeply on a set of policy ideas:

“I didn’t know” doesn’t help someone else whose family member is imprisoned with a mandatory minimum sentence for having a joint on them. Due to a policy that was put in place by the elected official who promised tax cuts, along with an increase in aggressive policing and very-outdated views on weed IE “just throw everyone in jail as a deterrent”.

Being lazy doesn’t excuse bad decisions. It wouldn’t hold up at work, so why should it hold up outside? Then again, many people wouldn’t admit it aloud but they actually DO support those same aggressive policing ideas.

 

[TedEH]

I mean, politics are sort of designed to operate on that level, and in some ways I think very deliberately exploit the fact that people are not very good at history. Trump didn't exactly give an in-depth history lesson next to every statement or promise he made.

 

[StevenC]

The problem with politics is that it requires everyone to have a good understanding of what is going on around them from a local to global level, just to work in principle. To work in practice it requires that plus everyone to set aside their biases and care for their fellow human.

And you need both because without he first one you get people voting on issues they don't understand, and without the second you get people voting against their best interests to spite others.

That's why democracy is dumb and you should go to your local public house to affirm your faith in StevenC as Supreme Leader of Earth and their Colonies.

 

[Drew]

I mean, politics are sort of designed to operate on that level, and in some ways I think very deliberately exploit the fact that people are not very good at history. Trump didn't exactly give an in-depth history lesson next to every statement or promise he made.

VERY accurate.

 

[Furtive Glance]

I did this a few years ago and I was dead on that line between Auth and Lib and maybe 2 notches to the right.

 

[eggy in a bready]

can i have a little utopia, as a treat

 

[c7spheres]

The questions are impossbly vague. I could have went between either extreme in many instances depending on what the real life scenario would have been. Guess that's why it's near the middle.

 

[Justaguitarist]

https://imgur.com/vd5N2xv

These are my political views. I would call myself a democratic socialist mostly. Also, I´m a very secularist person (personally atheist-agnostic, but I think people should be able to believe in whatever they want as long as they don´t hurt anyone in the process). Even if I was religious I would still be in favor of the separation of Church and State. Also, I identify ideologically with the Three Arrows, which is anti-authoritarian left, anti-fascist, and anti-conservatism (especially reactionary conservatism).

These views are not really set in stone of course. I still wanna read some more political books to learn more about other perspectives.